On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is > simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. I don't think there's any question that "main" is the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" which we promise to keep "entirely free software". Nor is there any question that the debian free software guidelines represents the social contract's definition of "free". > There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all > non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be > a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint > of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of > making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve > the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses, > ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone > making serious alternative suggestions. > > So no, I don't really think this is a matter of much debate. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
