| 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 |
Archives