Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> They've concluded that the GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG, > > Yes. > >> and that everything in Debian (apparently modulo licenses >> themselves) must satisfy the DFSG. > > No. The latest amendment to the social contract (GR 2004-004) > indicates that we should at least allow the interpretation of the > previous social contract by the RM and can refrain from removing items > that don't satisfy the DFSG and may not have to according to their (or > ftpmaster's) judgement.[1] > 1: Obviously, post-sarge is an entirely different story.
If it's needed post-sarge, then it's even better if we get it done pre-sarge, obviously. If Autoconf's documentation is not wanted in Debian, then it's not wanted in sarge. The rationale in GR 2004-004 is that we don't have enough time to remove FDL documentation. I had a free hour, so I removed it from Autoconf. >> Autoconf's documentation is under the FDL and therefore must be >> removed. Furthermore, there was both an official and an unofficial >> vote in favor of making sure that this happens. I was opposed, but >> I can't really go against the will of the whole project. > > From what I can tell, the overall consensus was that sarge should > release with GFDLed and similar works in place, and that we should > remove these works post-sarge. The rationale in GR 2004-004 is that we don't have enough time to remove FDL documentation. Simply not true in my case. It's a simple job and I did it. > Either way, you're free to remove the documentation or keep it as you > see fit, but please don't lay the blame upon everyone who participates > in debian-legal for doing so. Okay. I'll blame, instead, everyone who voted in favor of GR 2004-003. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org
