On Friday, 26 Sep 2003 09:43:26 -0500, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> s
> > 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.
> > 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. 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?
> I think there is a fairly clear position statement on this from the
> Release Manager, embodied in the use of the sarge-ignore tag instead
> of trying to reduce the severity of the bugs in question. I.e.,
Attaching labels that are the purvue of the release manager to
certain bugs does not, in fact, constitute a position statement. All
that means is that the release manager does not consider theissue
important enough to stop the release -- indeed, were he concerned
that things violate the social contract, you would think we would
delay the release, neh?
> they are being regarded as non-RC policy violations. (Or at the
> very least, it means AJ is unwilling to stick his foot where you
> just have by declaring them non-bugs.)
I consider the fact that we are not delaying the release to be
a nod towards not thinking these are DFSG/social contract violations.
> > Why should we not have a common solution? 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)?
>
> > Some have asserted (incorrectly), that the binary packages
> > would be no different, and end users should see no change. The
> > fact that people make such assertion shows that they have not
> > investigated the amount of changes to the packages that would
> > result, not the decrease in utility.
> *I* assert that because the GFDL clearly does not comply with the
> DFSG, and because it is not clear that a GR to supplement the DFSG
> with a set of DFDG will pass, maintainers of packages containing
Well, nice to know you have telepathy and an ability to
predict the future. And I suppose you, as with all of us, have the
right to assert anything you wish: I assert that hot mango chutney is
better than sweet mango chutney.
> GFDL works should take responsibility of their own accord and start
> looking for a GFDL-less solution sooner rather than later precisely
> to avoid this decrease in utility.
That, too, is a nice sentiment. The rich nations should make a
better effort to fight global poverty. And people in the middle east
should live in harmony with nature and each other.
I am not sure that that would improve make, but who knows.
>
> It is presumptious on your part to close a license bug without a
> clear consensus that the license *is* ok. There is an outstanding
I close bugs on my packages all the time based on my judgement
alone. If this is presumption, then indeed, friends, I am guilty.
> issue here, and there is a need to be able to track the packages
> affected by this issue. Individual opinions on the freeness of the
> GFDL are secondary to this. If changing a large number of packages
> can no longer be done without official sanction, then neither can
> bugs such as this be considered closed without a similar official
> statement.
So create a WikiPage. The BTS is there to resolve issues that
users have with make, and in my opinion, make is not buggy -- at
least until the DPL, or the developers by the means of a position
statement make a determination to the contrary.
I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
project, as you wish.
manoj
--
Whenever anyone says, "theoretically," they really mean, "not really."
Dave Parnas
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
