Re: a DFSG/GNU FDL quick reference webpage
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:35:46 -0400, David B Harris
<david@eelf.ddts.net> said:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 +0000 (UTC)
> Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu> wrote:
(I seem to have overlooked this message initially)
>> On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> >> I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some
>> >> links to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU
>> >> FDL as it relates to the DFSG.
>> >
>> > I think we need to have a position statement, issued under the
>> > Debian constitution section 4.1.5.
>> > ...
>> > Please visit
>> > <URL:http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml>
>> >
>> > Any comments, feedback, suggested wording, and proof reading
>> > appreciated.
>> I'm not sure going point-by-point through the text of the license
>> is the best way to proceed; I feel like the main point gets a
>> little lost. For instance, the DRM issues, which RMS has said the
>> FSF will address (eventually), happen to come up first, while I
>> feel the heart of the disagreement is over the invariant sections.
>> At least, I would have some executive summary at the beginning.
If you would provide suggested wording for the most egregious
perceived flaws, we could add that in, with hyperlinks deeper into
the document for details.
> I asked Manoj about this myself, and the ensuing discussion
> basically resulted in "let's be as complete as possible now - it can
> be reorganised for specific audiences later."
Right. I would not mind starting to create an outline of the
position statement (inserted, perhaps, before the annotated GFDL),
and let it gradually flesh out. Given my relative inexperience on
this list, I would take a back seat to other folks here to provide
the actual working, at least initially.
manoj
--
Stop! Whoever crosseth the bridge of Death, must answer first these
questions three, ere the other side he see! "What is your name?" "Sir
Brian of Bell." "What is your quest?" "I seek the Holy Grail." "What
are four lowercase letters that are not legal flag arguments to the
Berkeley UNIX version of `ls'?" "I, er.... AIIIEEEEEE!"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: