On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 +0000 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove
non-free GR, surely?
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract
and
the constitution.
This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the
guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek
loopholes
in.
We currently do not require that everything go in main.
There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed list
stands.
Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed >
documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not
meet
DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes to
does
not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software
operating
system.
"GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed
docs removed from Debian's main dist".
"GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.
Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace
them.
I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few
>
changes should be necessary. [...]
This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as
claiming
non-free meets some DFSG.
That's a claim, not a practice.
So why is it in there?
If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be
packages
in non-free which that claim would require be removed.
To my knowledge there are no such packages.
At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.
I think you have misrepresented it.
Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.
I don't think there are any.
I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current
practice.
Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted
many
subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it
changes from the current version.
You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and,
frankly,
I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not
seem to have acted upon it.
I don't see that it's all that significant. If you really want to
know
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still
available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in
them.
Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
