On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > > only certain opinions should be accepted? > > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an > unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant: > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed > > on debian-legal recently. Read > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents > > licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this > > position might be for Debian. > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main.
Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that would be all right. :) Friendly, Sven Luther
