On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as "official"
[...]
Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?
[...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.
Don't they already have them? They just might not be reported yet.
So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating
1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant
sections
are used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate);
Drop everything after "compliant".
2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge;
Passing this would indicate a majority of DDs supporting violation of
Debian's Social Contract, surely?
3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably.
This has always been true for most, I think.
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash,
unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals
out now.
It depends. How many FDL-licensed works have reached testing? How
many of those were at least as buggy in woody? On the one hand, I
could see sarge being an improvement on the freeness of woody, but I
wonder if this could be dealt with totally for sarge, if DPL, RM and
DDs are willing.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
