Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > > 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> > > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. > > Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to documentation > than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it seemed most > sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's > the policy.
Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] and there is a clear consensus that works under the GFDL do not belong in main [2], is this decision going to be revised? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html
