* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The > > >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of > > >understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected. > > >Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be > > >treated as such. > > I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly. > > So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape > Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain support for the non-free removal resolution. I think most people perceive RFCs as being free enough for their purpose, even though they are not DFSG-free. Of course you can come up with scenerios where someone could have a completely legitimate desire to use an RFC in a derivative work, but in comparison to situations where one wants to modify software this is extremely infrequent. I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the basis that their licensing is not permissive enough. RFCs are the end product of a community process that represents everything Debian stands for. (Yes, I know that non-free is not part of Debian. All I claim above is that in the status quo Debian distributes non-free.) -- Josh Haberman Debian GNU/Linux developer
