On 19 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Manoj writes: > > I beg to disagree with this assesment. I was under the > > imprtession that we were moving towards the verbatim solution; with > > allowances being made to ensure that licenses were distributed with > > the software that required them. > > I thought that we had pretty much agreed on verbatim but that there was > still some disagreement as to whether it should viewed as part of main. > I think it should.
IMHO, if verbatim is part of main then there is no "verbatim" as such. I think everything on which we agreed was that the "Debian Document Guidelines" (still to be written) should not be the exactly the same as our already existing Debian Free Software Guidelines. In practice, one of the main points about main is that you can *sell* it and this is one of the main reasons why non-free packages are moved out of main. People and CD vendors do not usually modify almost any of the packages. And the fact that we ship only free software in main does not mean that people can ignore the non-modifiable clause of the GPL itself, for example. I think we could live having the GPL and other non-modifiable documents in main, without the need to create another section for them. Our current promise about main is: "All the *software* in main comply with the DFSG". We can extend this promise to something like: "All the documents non-directly related to software in main comply with the DDG" [to be written]. and then we would not need any additional section. Thanks. -- "2e80e92be14372b527ead4e4e4a956ab" (a truly random sig)
