"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > MJ Ray wrote: >> >> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion? > > as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing > is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and > Documentation. > > once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with > defining the free-ness needs of each.
I don't think that this is even necessary. Suppose, for example, we chose to solve the documentation problem by creating a new archive section for documentation. Documentation that meets the DFSG would preferably still be included in main; only non-DFSG-compliant documentation would have to go in the new section. The requirements for packages to go in the documentation section would probably be something like: must be Arch: all, must not have any files with the executable bit set, and must be freely distributable. The advantage to doing this over simply placing non-free documentation in the non-free archive section is that it could be considered "part of Debian", even if not included in main, and would be safe for CD vendors to distribute (which is not necessarily true for packages in non-free). -- I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis.
pgpUcfNrtv0BE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
