On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free > > software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy > > guideline #3. > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
[For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Bruce Perens has also stated that when he wrote the damn thing, he meant "all the stuff that goes on the CD" by "software". I don't think it's at all relevant to the current discussion, though. Either GFDL-licensed stuff can go in main or it can't; either non-free will be there or it won't, and neither of those two decisions alone can compel "Can Debian distribute GFDL-licensed stuff?" to be "No". I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. (Or spread FUD) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
