Re: Decision GFDL
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to bother. Now they should bother. Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these bugs will not be considered blockers for sarge. Do you mean to say that the maintainers of all the affected packages only fix the RC bugs against their packages, and ignore everything else? That is why they are called release-critical. They have to be fixed before the release. Other bugs do not. The release manager has some discretion to decide that a bug isn't _really_ release critical, but I didn't think he could just ignore the Social Contract. That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These documents are not going to become free in the forseeable future. Is it ok for the maintainers of the packages that contain GFDL documentation to ignore the Social Contract? They have also agreed to uphold it; it shouldn't require a mandate from the release manager to get these bugs fixed. (Even treating the bug as RC does not guarantee the Social Contract has been upheld, as it only guarantees the bug will not exist in the release -- possibly by removing the package from testing and leaving it, bugs and all, in unstable.) The severity of these bugs has not been changed; they are still considered serious bugs, and they still need to be fixed. And yet they are somehow not really serious bugs, since serious bugs are, by definition, release-critical. No. Serious bugs are, by definition, violations of must requirements in Debian Policy. This makes them release-critical by *default*, but this is not the first time that a serious bug has been ignored for a release. Nothing stops the maintainers from working on them between now and the freeze date if they have the time for it. Nothing stops you from working on them, if you feel this is important to resolve prior to release. But if no one is willing to work on them, your claim that there won't be a significant delay seems rather ephemeral. The problem is not manpower, it is willpower. gcc, for example, has already done most of the work to fix this bug. All that really needs to be done is for someone with authority to tell them to apply it. Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high priority between now and the release? Does the patch have negative side effects that leave the maintainers reluctant to apply it (such as leaving sarge without any gcc manual at all, even in non-free)? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpIOw7TcuY2Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why does Debian's GCC still have GFDL components in main? (was Re: Decision GFDL)
Steve Langasek wrote (in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html): Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high priority between now and the release? I believe that the maintainers want to have a document they can point to when ignorant users say WHY ISN'T THE GCC MANUAL IN MAIN? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Perhaps they're also waiting for the consensus on manuals with no Invariant Sections and no Cover Texts, which took longer to come to consensus. (The majority opinion now is that the GFDL is not a free license even then, due to the overly broad technical measures clause among other things.) The GCC mantainers can correct me if I'm wrong or verify that I'm right which is why I've cross-posted this to debian-gcc. Could some Debian developer who is a debian-legal regular perhaps write such a document and put in on some Debian website? Somewhere on people.debian.org would quite likely satisfy the desire for something 'official'. You can lift mine if you like. :-) Perhaps even a nice summarizing post on debian-legal would do. Does the patch have negative side effects that leave the maintainers reluctant to apply it (such as leaving sarge without any gcc manual at all, even in non-free)? Quite likely. Probably this could be fixed with little effort by uploading a non-free-gcc source package though...
Re: Why does Debian's GCC still have GFDL components in main? (was Re: Decision GFDL)
[ Disclaimer: I supposedly have CVS access, last I was told, and I] [ certainly do most of the work to ensure that GCC will work on the ] [ proto-port to NetBSD; apart from that, and reading both debian-gcc ] [ and debian-legal, you probably have to ask Matthias Klose for a final ] [ answer, since he initially replied to the GFDL bug. ] On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:54:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Steve Langasek wrote (in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html): Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high priority between now and the release? I believe that the maintainers want to have a document they can point to when ignorant users say WHY ISN'T THE GCC MANUAL IN MAIN? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? This seems to be the primary issue. Removing the manuals isn't all that hard (okay, maybe not trivial, but not *hard*), but it will result in the sound of a million developers crying out, and then suddenly being silenced... er, okay, maybe not. But *I* certainly would like to have a canonical answer to give folks (like the proposed GFDL FAQ) when they come beating on the lists, railing against fate and Debian that the manuals have vanished to the abyss of non-free. Perhaps they're also waiting for the consensus on manuals with no Invariant Sections and no Cover Texts, which took longer to come to consensus. (The majority opinion now is that the GFDL is not a free license even then, due to the overly broad technical measures clause among other things.) One which I share, though I believe the actual statement by Matthias was (paraphrased) Call me when y'all make up your minds. I'd say the survey more or less accomplished demonstrating this, for the moment. I'm not sure if that suffices for Matthias, or whether he wants a statement from the (RM/DPL/ftpmaster/High Pooba) sanctioning it. The GCC mantainers can correct me if I'm wrong or verify that I'm right which is why I've cross-posted this to debian-gcc. See the disclaimer at the beginning of this message. :) Could some Debian developer who is a debian-legal regular perhaps write such a document and put in on some Debian website? Somewhere on people.debian.org would quite likely satisfy the desire for something 'official'. You can lift mine if you like. :-) Perhaps even a nice summarizing post on debian-legal would do. Does the patch have negative side effects that leave the maintainers reluctant to apply it (such as leaving sarge without any gcc manual at all, even in non-free)? Quite likely. Probably this could be fixed with little effort by uploading a non-free-gcc source package though... Certainly it would require splitting things out and juggling a bunch of things to get things to get it all sorted out. Not impossible, but I don't blame Matthias for wanting a clear ruling on it before going to that much effort. A patch won't suffice, since the *sources* for main must be Free, and thus, the entire manual set must be moved to a separate source package, to be maintained in Debian. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpsSb3UMpH64.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Decision GFDL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These documents are not going to become free in the forseeable future. Is it ok for the maintainers of the packages that contain GFDL documentation to ignore the Social Contract? Of course not, but they keep getting conflicting signals. J. Random debian-legal-eagle says it is a bug, but the esteemed Release Manager tells them it might not be. So the problem is the statement that the Release Manager made. Once again, is it ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? I understand that the Release Manager has some flexibility with policy, but I thought that he didn't have that flexibility with the Social Contract. Please let me know if I'm wrong. They have also agreed to uphold it; it shouldn't require a mandate from the release manager to get these bugs fixed. (Even treating the bug as RC does not guarantee the Social Contract has been upheld, as it only guarantees the bug will not exist in the release -- possibly by removing the package from testing and leaving it, bugs and all, in unstable.) Unstable packages often have RC bugs. That is why it is called unstable. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Decision GFDL
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at the package maintainers. The consensus on GFDL'd manuals emerged long after those manuals were put in. The appropriate bugs have been filed, and I would point my finger at the Release Manager for allowing documented release-critical bugs to get into the released version. These bugs are *already* in the released version. The Release Manager would simply be permitting another release which still has them. The alternative would be to delay the release. Delaying a release because of bugs which are already present in the previous version is silly. RC bugs are still release critical, even if they were in older versions. Are you saying that breaking the Social Contract isn't release critical? Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so they won't be any better off. And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case, I don't think that there will be a significant delay. It is rather unlikely that fixing these bugs will create any new RC bugs. The package maintainers have a different alternative, namely fixing the bugs. Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to bother. Now they should bother. If sarge was releasing a year ago, I would agree with you. There was not the same kind of consensus, and we still had hope that the FSF would see the light. Now there is a strong consensus, and the chance of the FSF seeing the light has been reduced to zero. Moreover, there is still plenty of time to rip out documentation. So, do it. If I understand the schedule right, the deadline is September 15th for gcc (minus testing delay) and October 1st for most of the others (again, minus testing delay). Most of the work for gcc seems to have already been done. See bug #193787. The maintainer is just waiting for a GFDL FAQ before enabling them. That FAQ has existed for a while. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Decision GFDL
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so they won't be any better off. And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case, I don't think that there will be a significant delay. It is rather unlikely that fixing these bugs will create any new RC bugs. The package maintainers have a different alternative, namely fixing the bugs. Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to bother. Now they should bother. Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these bugs will not be considered blockers for sarge. Do you mean to say that the maintainers of all the affected packages only fix the RC bugs against their packages, and ignore everything else? The severity of these bugs has not been changed; they are still considered serious bugs, and they still need to be fixed. Nothing stops the maintainers from working on them between now and the freeze date if they have the time for it. Nothing stops you from working on them, if you feel this is important to resolve prior to release. But if no one is willing to work on them, your claim that there won't be a significant delay seems rather ephemeral. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp47EmRo1NnA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Decision GFDL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to bother. Now they should bother. Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these bugs will not be considered blockers for sarge. Do you mean to say that the maintainers of all the affected packages only fix the RC bugs against their packages, and ignore everything else? That is why they are called release-critical. They have to be fixed before the release. Other bugs do not. The release manager has some discretion to decide that a bug isn't _really_ release critical, but I didn't think he could just ignore the Social Contract. That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These documents are not going to become free in the forseeable future. The severity of these bugs has not been changed; they are still considered serious bugs, and they still need to be fixed. And yet they are somehow not really serious bugs, since serious bugs are, by definition, release-critical. Nothing stops the maintainers from working on them between now and the freeze date if they have the time for it. Nothing stops you from working on them, if you feel this is important to resolve prior to release. But if no one is willing to work on them, your claim that there won't be a significant delay seems rather ephemeral. The problem is not manpower, it is willpower. gcc, for example, has already done most of the work to fix this bug. All that really needs to be done is for someone with authority to tell them to apply it. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Decision GFDL
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at the package maintainers. The consensus on GFDL'd manuals emerged long after those manuals were put in. The appropriate bugs have been filed, and I would point my finger at the Release Manager for allowing documented release-critical bugs to get into the released version. These bugs are *already* in the released version. The Release Manager would simply be permitting another release which still has them. The alternative would be to delay the release. Delaying a release because of bugs which are already present in the previous version is silly. Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so they won't be any better off. The package maintainers have a different alternative, namely fixing the bugs. If sarge was releasing a year ago, I would agree with you. There was not the same kind of consensus, and we still had hope that the FSF would see the light. Now there is a strong consensus, and the chance of the FSF seeing the light has been reduced to zero. Moreover, there is still plenty of time to rip out documentation. So, do it. If I understand the schedule right, the deadline is September 15th for gcc (minus testing delay) and October 1st for most of the others (again, minus testing delay). Richard Braakman
Re: Decision GFDL
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar statements. I hope people realize that the release team is saying This is not release critical, and not This is not a bug. I had a terrible time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I was release manager :) I didn't realize that the release manager could decide to ignore the Social Contract if it is inconvenient. A more appropriate way to fix it would be to simply eliminate the documentation. People could then file bugs complaining about the lack of documentation even in non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release. Weirdness. The appropriate reply to what you said is exactly the paragraph that you quoted from me. What am I supposed to say now? You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at the package maintainers. What the release manager has decided is that the release must not be delayed for this issue. I think that's a prudent decision, considering that it's already taken two years and there's no guarantee of a quick resolution. It may or may not be relevant that woody already has some GFDL manuals in it. I can't decide, myself. It does seem silly to consider a bug release-critical if the current stable version of the package has the exact same problem. Richard Braakman
Re: Decision GFDL
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:22:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well, as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. Yes there is. I can predict with a fair amount of certainty that there is a lot of porn lurking in there. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpzrImblFAua.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Decision GFDL
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar statements. I hope people realize that the release team is saying This is not release critical, and not This is not a bug. I had a terrible time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I was release manager :) I didn't realize that the release manager could decide to ignore the Social Contract if it is inconvenient. A more appropriate way to fix it would be to simply eliminate the documentation. People could then file bugs complaining about the lack of documentation even in non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release. Weirdness. The appropriate reply to what you said is exactly the paragraph that you quoted from me. What am I supposed to say now? Well, you could clarify whether it is ok to ignore the Social Contract. You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at the package maintainers. The consensus on GFDL'd manuals emerged long after those manuals were put in. The appropriate bugs have been filed, and I would point my finger at the Release Manager for allowing documented release-critical bugs to get into the released version. What the release manager has decided is that the release must not be delayed for this issue. I think that's a prudent decision, considering that it's already taken two years and there's no guarantee of a quick resolution. If sarge was releasing a year ago, I would agree with you. There was not the same kind of consensus, and we still had hope that the FSF would see the light. Now there is a strong consensus, and the chance of the FSF seeing the light has been reduced to zero. Moreover, there is still plenty of time to rip out documentation. It may or may not be relevant that woody already has some GFDL manuals in it. I can't decide, myself. It does seem silly to consider a bug release-critical if the current stable version of the package has the exact same problem. Old versions of ssh in woody had RC bugs, we just didn't know about them. That doesn't make a newer version with the same bugs any less buggy. Similarly, the consensus that these bugs are really bugs didn't form until after woody released. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Decision GFDL
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Branden Robinson writes: There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing non-technical position statements under clause 4.1.5 of our Consitution, and most of the time our license DFSG-analysis process is relatively uncontentious. Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as official has allowed RMS to remain in his state of denial. It would also appear that if the consensus (that the GFDL in the form that it is used for the GNU manuals violates the DFSG), then the announced policy of the release gods that this will be ignored for the sarge release seems problematic. Given this, it would seem reasonable for the Debian developers to formally decide what they are going to do, since it would appear that a temporary waiver of a part of the DFSG is needed. Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have release-critical bugs. So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating 1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant sections are used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate); 2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge; 3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably. I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with things like doxygen-generated libstdc++ documentation (is it even distributable if it combines GPL and GFDL text?).
Re: Re: Decision GFDL
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar statements. I hope people realize that the release team is saying This is not release critical, and not This is not a bug. I had a terrible time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I was release manager :) One thing I'm curious about and which I'm too sleepy to investigate now: were any of these manuals already under the GFDL in woody? Richard Braakman
Re: Re: Decision GFDL
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote: My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with things like doxygen-generated libstdc++ documentation (is it even distributable if it combines GPL and GFDL text?). Joe there is another potential solution and it does not require an approved motion nor changing the minds of the release managers. You could contact Debian's GCC developers on the debian-gcc mailing list (http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/), explain the situation and ask them to work on moving GCC's documentation into non-free as soon as possible (assuming distribution of doxygen-generated libstdc++ documentation is possible--but regardless the GFDL source has to be separated out). With the cooperation of Debian's GCC developers this can happen before the release of Sarge. Sarge's Release Critical policy defines what will absolutely stop a release happening. Any bugs not considered release critical can still be fixed. If you encounter resistance--e.g. a Debian developer is adamant that your manual is free--then simply ask the developer to take it up with the debian-legal mailing list. Regards, Adam
Re: Re: Decision GFDL
On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as official [...] Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet? [...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have release-critical bugs. Don't they already have them? They just might not be reported yet. So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating 1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant sections are used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate); Drop everything after compliant. 2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge; Passing this would indicate a majority of DDs supporting violation of Debian's Social Contract, surely? 3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably. This has always been true for most, I think. I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. It depends. How many FDL-licensed works have reached testing? How many of those were at least as buggy in woody? On the one hand, I could see sarge being an improvement on the freeness of woody, but I wonder if this could be dealt with totally for sarge, if DPL, RM and DDs are willing. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Decision GFDL
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing non-technical position statements under clause 4.1.5 of our Consitution, and most of the time our license DFSG-analysis process is relatively uncontentious. However, a convenient way to gauge consensus on the issue can be found by reading the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01031.html As noted in the following message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01214.html I will be tallying results sometime on or about Thursday, 28 August. Whether or not the rest of the Debian Project agrees to whatever consensus this survey establishes, I cannot say. If that particular issue[1] remains divisive even afterwards, we may require a General Resolution to settle it. [1] not to be confused with should we apply the DFSG to the GNU FDL *at all*? -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpn78uZAjgZH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Decision GFDL
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that develops upon debian-legal. This process should not be confused with 100% agreement. Over time a position may become clear as it has in relation to the GNU FDL. You should not expect an actual Debian-decision unless the consensus interpretation is challenged by proposing, seconding and voting upon a General Resolution to change the Social Contract/Free Software Guidelines. Right now there are implementation issues related to removing GFDL software from Debian and a claim that some members of the Free Software Foundation has asked for more time to make the GFDL a free software licence. Richard Stallman has recently stated on this list that one of the major issues--invariance--is not negotiable. It is possible (but unlikely) that Stallman's dictates could be challenged within the Free Software Foundation. I also see a wider context to this issue. The Debian project is now a very influential organisation and recent events indicate that Richard Stallman would like to undermine its influence. Even though Richard Stallman is in the process of becoming a Debian developer he recently denigrated Debian: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=260 RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software. If I knew of more than one such distribution, I would choose between them based on practical considerations. TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software? RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered part of Debian, but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org. [For a while this was patently false: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html It is truly extraordinary but the link to Debian GNU/Linux has been removed! Updated: $Date: 2003/08/18 21:42:23 $ $Author: rms $. The same version is now in Google's cache. Still around 100 links to go (but I'm pretty sure there were a lot more when I last checked): http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.gnu.org+%22debian.org%22] GNU/LinEx is better because it does not distribute or recommend those programs. TRB: How about distributions, such as Mandrake or Red Hat, that keep non-free software out of their downloadable versions all together? RMS: I would not rely on that, because I know they have not been very careful in checking whether packages really are free. TRB: Does your desktop run GNU/Linux, and if so, do you run GNU/LinEx or some other distribution? RMS: I travel most of the time, so I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux, which was the best distribution in terms of respecting freedom as of the time we set up the machine. (The availability of GNU/LinEx is a recent development.) TRB: Has the Free Software Foundation ever considered publishing a complete GNU/Linux distribution? RMS: We sponsored the development of Debian GNU/Linux back in 1994. TRB: Especially with the selection of truly free distributions being somewhat lacking, why did the Foundation get out of the distribution development business? RMS: My thinking was that if we made our own modified version of Debian it would not get much usage, and that developing an entirely new distribution would be a lot of work and only worth doing with the Hurd. ... === Please note that Debian's decision making about the GNU FDL is definitely not based upon petty personality issues. The consensus process literally took years. It is a quality, reasoned consensus that respects Debian's social contract and the DFSG, and overturning it would require an amendment to Debian's founding principles. Regards, Adam
Re: Decision GFDL
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well, as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. It ain't called grey matter for nothing.
