Hi *, On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 04:15:29PM +0100, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > >I don't ask for repeating the discussion, I ask for the result. > >Why does the PDL not fullfill the DFSG? > [snip] > >Since you took part in that discussion, you could surely summarize the > >point where the PDL fails or at least post a pointer to the discussion. > > Found it. Section 3.2 includes force distribution which failes the > Desert Island test: > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00236.html
OK, I read it with emphasis on "*editable* format", not on "must publish", but this is another point that could be clarified by a new revision or similar. > There was also a problem with section 3.3: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00260.html I don't this is a problem either. The 5-year limit applies when one tracks the changes using an electronic program like cvs. You cannot log the changes in CVS and the unplugg the server one week after the docs are published. (Well you can uplugg it but then you have to provide the logs elsewhere) > [...] > But no matter. It looks like you and Ian came up with a good > alternative. Let me explore that before we keep dwelling on this. OK. ciao Christian -- NP: Hamlet - El disfraz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
