On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing. > > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and > > the constitution. > > This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the > guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek > loopholes in. We currently do not require that everything go in main. > > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy > > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback > > position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed > > documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all. > > This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not > meet DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes > to does not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software > operating system. "GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian's main dist". "GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs. > > I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few > > changes should be necessary. [...] > > This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as > claiming non-free meets some DFSG. That's a claim, not a practice. If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be packages in non-free which that claim would require be removed. To my knowledge there are no such packages. > I think you have misrepresented it. Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free. I don't think there are any. > Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted > many subtle variations on it without even a changelog. Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version. You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, frankly, I don't see that it's all that significant. If you really want to know what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in them. > Further, it is not a proposal but an amendment to the remove non-free > GR. It's an amendment of a proposal, which mean it is a proposal. > As said above, I think it's wrong to combine wording and policy changes. You said they were orthogonal -- that's not really true. Is there some other reason you think it's wrong? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
