[Russ Allbery] > If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead > and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs > can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable) option: - Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical problems that this would cause both for us and for our users. The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include: - All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the corresponding binary packages are deleted - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own download mirrors. - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. I think any one of these points is serious enough to reject GNU FDL works regardless of whether they can pass a strict reading of the DFSG. In other words, the DFSG is a *necessary* but not necessarily *sufficient* hurdle. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature