Jules Bean wrote: > > Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to upload them to main. After all, they're not software, so who gives a hoot if they violate the DFSG? > It does, once again, re-raise the issue of whether we need to a) > extend the DFSG to cover documentation, or b) establish some kind of > debian guidelines for acceptable document licenses. > > Note that we do include a variety of textual works (documents) whose > license doesn't comply with the DFSG. Yes, and I hate it. It's damned hypocritical -- see shy jo
