1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with |
4 |
> it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. |
5 |
> GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are |
6 |
> all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we |
7 |
> should resolve this. |
8 |
|
9 |
So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything |
10 |
into "FSF-APPROVED"? |
11 |
|
12 |
> For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one |
13 |
> with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc |
14 |
> by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but |
15 |
> I wanted to start something ;-) |
16 |
|
17 |
Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we |
18 |
need another group for them? |
19 |
|
20 |
> What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that |
21 |
> there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package? |
22 |
|
23 |
For man-pages "freedist" isn't really a good label. It should rather |
24 |
be something like "as-is GPL-2 BSD". I've opened bug 299893 for it. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Maybe then we should provide an option to install the base system |
27 |
> without man-pages? |
28 |
|
29 |
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're not Debian. |
30 |
|
31 |
Ulrich |