On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be > > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense? > > The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we > are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian > Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on > the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this > is the case;
I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly phrased; where we differ is on how to clarify it. In the absense of such a resolution, I don't think we're forced to woodenly apply those broken principles; instead, we try to fix them first. > which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify > the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount > of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if > their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. A GR appears necessary no matter what route we choose. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]