On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:41AM +1030, Ron wrote: > If use of the the invariant section is the bug here, then it appears to > me that in this file at least, it is quite redundant and changes nothing.
Yes, it's the invariant sections that are the problem. Honestly, don't ask me why (like you, I'm not into the license debate thing), but we had a GR saying that the GFDL with invariant sections (or front- and back-cover texts) is non-free. Thus, all documentation licensed under the GFDL with invariant sections must go from main -- I don't see the big point of discussing it any further than that. > If we are not going to declare the base-files package (with the > unmodifiable GPL text), or any other package that includes that invariant > text (probably a large portion of the distro), to be non-free, then what is > the issue with explicitly (re)stating that (unchanged) fact in this text? License texts are a special case, really. Please don't try to pull the debate in that direction; it's not particularily productive. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
