On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Hamish Moffatt] > > That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..." > > does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient > > for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that > > doesn't seem to affect its freeness. > > One must remember, however, that while a "mere convenience" issue for > our users may be a non-issue for Debian, a "mere convenience" issue > that affects Debian directly is very relevant. > > Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that > comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG. As a hypothetical, > if the software required Debian's FTP servers to keep the source > available for 10 years, unconditionally, we'd probably refuse to ship > that software on the grounds that that would be a PITA. Likewise, I > think that "FDL-licensed content may be DFSG-free, but considering the > practical problems it causes us, we'd rather not ship any of it" is a > consistent and reasonable position to take.
Indeed. However Aj's proposal actually argues that the transparent copies clause makes these documents non-free. That doesn't seem to be justified. I don't think Manoj's position statement document adds any additional justification either. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]