On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:40:56 -0700 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 would also add to this the obvious "and must be approved by an ftpmaster" :) That guideline is too broad, all sorts of non-Free crap could get in under it.) And most certainly isn't necessarily true for non-Free documentation. Even the GFDL has been questioned on this point. I would prefer the "create a new documentation tree" solution over "include non-Free documentation in main", but chances are CD vendors will need to treat it like they treat non-Free.
pgpWw5oTAcwkO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
