On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? > > Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
> Because software isn't documentation? > Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to > maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, > equivalent to a nuclear device, "for the purposes of the import > regulations". We all know how well that worked. > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense? The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this is the case; which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpBxFsXZPiql.pgp
Description: PGP signature
