On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I've heard three different stories describing this GR: > 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything > 2. the Debian developers decided in this GR that documentation has to > fulfill the full DFSG guidelines > 3. many Debian mistakenly agreed with it because they mistakenly > beliefed after reading the title that it only contained editorial > and no actual changes
The SC, prior to GR2004-003, already required that documentation be DFSG-free. I've never seen any strong argument otherwise, and GR2004-003 simply made it explicitly clear. (GR2004-004 didn't make any sense at all, nor does it make any sense that Sarge can ship with non-free documentation, and at the time I found the posts of the RM on the topic to make no sense at all, but I was satisfied with the results of GR2004-003 and am able to bear the strangeness of GR2004-004 for now, since it'll expire on its own.) (And if people really are voting for a GR after only reading the title, I'd be even more disappointed, but I just don't believe that.) In any event, all of this is irrelevant: if people really think that non-free documentation should be allowed in Debian, propose a GR to allow it. Nothing short of that will make it so. If people really think they were "tricked", fine--fix it with another GR. Unless and until that happens, Debian's position is very clear. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]