On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > They've concluded that the GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG,
Yes. > and that everything in Debian (apparently modulo licenses > themselves) must satisfy the DFSG. No. The latest amendment to the social contract (GR 2004-004) indicates that we should at least allow the interpretation of the previous social contract by the RM and can refrain from removing items that don't satisfy the DFSG and may not have to according to their (or ftpmaster's) judgement.[1] While many of us disagree with the RMs interpretation of what the SC said, it appears to be a valid, self-consistent interpretation. > Autoconf's documentation is under the FDL and therefore must be > removed. Furthermore, there was both an official and an unofficial > vote in favor of making sure that this happens. I was opposed, but > I can't really go against the will of the whole project. From what I can tell, the overall consensus was that sarge should release with GFDLed and similar works in place, and that we should remove these works post-sarge. Either way, you're free to remove the documentation or keep it as you see fit, but please don't lay the blame upon everyone who participates in debian-legal for doing so. Don Armstrong 1: Obviously, post-sarge is an entirely different story. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
