Followup for : http://bugs.debian.org/207932
Thanks you for helping debian tracks licencing issues. Though this bug looks like an extension of the GFDL issue to some non documentation texts. This have not been agreed upon by debian-legal (in fact as far as i know "licences" and such documents have been explicitely exclude from the need to be DSFG free ). Again thank you for taking part in this time consuming task. Please ask on debian-legal when you encounter new types of documents not being explicitely stated in previous consensus (even if closely related). By the way it is not a bad thing to track those "not agreed upon" documents licence issues. Though please keep the talks about them on debian-legal. Maintainers do another jobs which is fixing bugs and making debian easier to use. Most of them don't want to hours looking after advanced legal issues. That s why debian-legal exists :) By the way even if a consensus is reached on debian-legal it would be helpfull to make a separate listing of those documents and discuss it with the release team and debian-devel. But please not the other way around. I would call it hijacking debian-legal. I guess this bug can be closed as "out of topic" for the bts. Regards Alban -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]