On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:25:16 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz wrote:
> > Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being
> > developed, I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked
> > 'invalid'.
>
> OK, Took the suggestion into ac
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz wrote:
> Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being developed,
> I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked 'invalid'.
OK, Took the suggestion into account and changed things.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.co
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:20 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz wrote:
> > please explain why you think this is opinion
>
> Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Indeed. And != Ubuntu opinion too.
> Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of th
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz wrote:
> please explain why you think this is opinion
Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of the package to
base its decisions on. If it reports something incorrectly, then there
are two possibilities (which not
CC-by-sa is considered free for artistic content by the FSF, and the
packages listed as non-free by vrms contains icons et similia.
The meaning of "vrms" is indeed Virtual Richard Matthew Stallman, but
it lists packages considered non-free by Debian (that's because was
written by Debian developers
CC-by-sa it's free for ubuntu (there was a discussion on the
gobuntu-devel mailing list).
I know that vrms is a debian project, so that it's impossible for us
to send a patch upstream (unless debian itself decide that older
CC-by-sa licences are indeed free), but ubuntu can do and apply a
patch to
> GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
> used.
Yes, but e.g. autoconf-doc uses the FDL and is still list as non-free;
this is because, as long as I know, software from FSF uses the FDL
entirely (invariant sections included).
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https:/
> I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
> make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.
Forgive me for the delay, please.
Well, vrms is a debian software, so even packages with the GNU FDL are
listed as non-free (such as autoconf-doc, for ex
