Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, > and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing > issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on > debian-legal about the GFDL.
Right. There is consensus in -legal that the GFDL is not a free software license (even RMS agrees). > This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given > the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be > controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. Huh? It's not a free software license, but because we use `so much of it', it's not a bug until 50% of developers agree? That doesn't make sense. Quantity is not an issue here. > If > this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first > get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release > manager? Note that they haven't publicably disagreed with -legal. The release manager says he won't treat it as an RC bug for sarge, but he didn't say it wasn't a bug. > Why should we not have a common solution? Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal. It's not a closed list. > Should I just move > make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit > of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from > software)? That would be your choice to make, as maintainer. It wouldn't be very productive, but it's your choice. If fixing this bug is a lot a work, then leave it open until you can do it. It's apparently not even RC for sarge. But you are saying it's not a bug because there are many affected packages. Peter