Re: What RMS says about standards (was: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Questions regarding free documentation.]
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> On 19 Aug 1998 john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
>> Manoj writes:
>> > I beg to disagree with this assesment. I was under the
>> > imprtession that we were moving towards the verbatim solution; with
>> > allowances being made to ensure that licenses were distributed with
>> > the software that required them.
>>
>> I thought that we had pretty much agreed on verbatim but that there was
>> still some disagreement as to whether it should viewed as part of main.
>> I think it should.
Santiago> IMHO, if verbatim is part of main then there is no "verbatim" as such.
True.
Santiago> I think we could live having the GPL and other
Santiago> non-modifiable documents in main, without the need to
Santiago> create another section for them.
Santiago> Our current promise about main is: "All the *software* in
Santiago> main comply with the DFSG". We can extend this promise to
Santiago> something like: "All the documents non-directly related to
Santiago> software in main comply with the DDG" [to be written].
Santiago> and then we would not need any additional section.
I can live with that. I won't agree to throwing the FSSTND and
the GPL into non-free (if there is a gpl_2.0-1_all.deb). Or contrib.
manoj
--
Those who are mentally and emotionally healthy are those who have
learned when to say yes, when to say no and when to say
whoopee. W.S. Krabill
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: