Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:07:54 +0100 Baruch Even wrote: > > >>Francesco Poli wrote: >> >>>I think that the severity of this bug is not properly set. >>>Being a severe violation of Debian policy, it should be raised to >>>severity 'serious', I would say. >> >>I agree that by normal standards this bug should be considered >>serious. But I do not want to stop the version from reaching testing >>just because of this issue. It doesn't make sense the make the package >>unusable (as it is in 1.2) because the docs are under the GFDL. >> >>I still hope that the GFDL issue will be resolved and I won't need to >>take out the docs from the package. >> >>If it does get to that I will remove the docs from the package, I >>filed the bug against my package to serve as a reminder to myself that >>it still needs to be handled. > > > I think it *does* need to be handled: > http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation > > And it should be handled beginning from now: delaying its solving could > mean ending up with a documentation-less package when etch is out...
Discussion with the author showed there is no chance to change the license since it's a GNU package with policy being mandated by the FSF. The *only* option is to remove the documentation so etch will be documentation-less unless the GFDL will be changed to be DFSG free. I don't see how resolving it now, as opposed to in a couple of months, will make documentation suddenly appear. Baruch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
