On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, and is >> very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing issues. And >> I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on debian-legal >> about the GFDL. > Right. There is consensus in -legal that the GFDL is not a free > software license (even RMS agrees). >> This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given the >> sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be >> controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. > Huh? It's not a free software license, but because we use `so much > of it', it's not a bug until 50% of developers agree? That doesn't > make sense. Quantity is not an issue here. It is not a bug unless there is a firm position statement by Debian, or I, as the maintainer, am convinced of the fact. >> If this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to >> first get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the >> release manager? > Note that they haven't publicably disagreed with -legal. The > release manager says he won't treat it as an RC bug for sarge, but > he didn't say it wasn't a bug. I am taking the position that the release manager would not put forth a release in gross violation of the social contract. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I believe in our RM. >> Why should we not have a common solution? > Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal. It's not a closed list. I have no objection to people discussing whatever they wish on legal either. >> Should I just move make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in >> accordance with the spirit of upstreams desires (do not separate >> the political text from software)? > That would be your choice to make, as maintainer. It wouldn't be > very productive, but it's your choice. > If fixing this bug is a lot a work, then leave it open until you can > do it. It's apparently not even RC for sarge. But you are saying > it's not a bug because there are many affected packages. If I determine that my packages are indeed shipping non free material, than I shall ask for them to be removed from testing and unstable; since not doing so would violate the social contract. I am afraid the social contract trumps what the RM may say. manoj -- Dawn, n.: The time when men of reason go to bed. Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C