On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > [message BCCed to aj] > > > > > > I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the > > > DFSG: <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt> > > > > > > Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, > > > and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This > > > will likely become a requirement post-sarge. > > > > Why can't the offending packages just be moved to non-free? It isn't > > like there hasn't been enough warning. > > I would guess that's because we haven't committed to a decision yet. > :-(
I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on the glibc mailing list: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200308/msg00160.html> I in no way support any claims that clear majority agreement has not been reached. So in this respect sarge_rc_policy.txt should at least read: "This will become a requirement post-sarge." > > > Given the aggressive (and endearingly optimistic) timetable of releasing > > > Sarge this December[0!] I support this pragmatic decision. > > > > Pragmatism is not the defining principle of the DFSG. > > With you 100%. It's a timing issue. Clear consensus has only occurred very recently. Do people want to see FTP uploads being rejected right this minute? The forthcoming release of Sarge gives everyone a clear and historical cut off date for implementing the consensus and gives archive maintainers a clear date for strictly enforcing policy. Regards, Adam
