Hi, Had some more thoughts about that licensing issue and wanted to make some suggestions.
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we should resolve this. Difference between OSI and FSF approved: AFAIK, I once read about one license that OSI approved and FSF not. Do we have any affected packages in the tree where FSF and OSI differ? I think the definitions of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, their differences are more on a political level, not on a licensing one. So I'd like it much more to have one big "This is free and open source software" set. For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but I wanted to start something ;-) What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package? Maybe then we should provide an option to install the base system without man-pages? -- Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/ GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: ha...@hboeck.de http://schokokeks.org - professional webhosting
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
