>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: > 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.
So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything into "FSF-APPROVED"? > 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 ;-) Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we need another group for them? > What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that > there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package? For man-pages "freedist" isn't really a good label. It should rather be something like "as-is GPL-2 BSD". I've opened bug 299893 for it. > Maybe then we should provide an option to install the base system > without man-pages? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're not Debian. Ulrich
