My take on that part:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> The GR proposal apparently results in useful GFDL-covered material to be
> moved to the non-free section. In a previous GR, Debian has reaffirmed
> support for non-free. Is it a conscious motive or an acciden
At the time of writing, I've not seen these two answered:
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Has Debian explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
> non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use? If so, which GR(s) has
> (have) established this?
I think so. Amongst others, see
http://r
Hi,
I would like to throw my hat in the ring to try to clarify to
y'all what I believe the GR and amendments are doing, and which may
explain why the ballot is shaping up the way it is -- and that
involves the release tea decision that the GFDL is non-free.
I am currently recon
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Anthony's proposal states or infers
> * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
> * GFDL material will not be included in main
> * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
> Copies" and "Dig
[Speaking only for myself, but I do think it reflects the truth fairly
well]
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> These difficulties may be due to English not being my native language,
> to my lack of knowledge of previous events, differences in assumptions
> or vari
Hi,
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it hard to fully understand my
current options in the GFDL GR. In particular, I've become unsure of
what Anthony's proposal is actually saying Debian should do, and of what
the end result of Adeodato's amendment would be. Also, I have found it
difficult to
6 matches
Mail list logo
