On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:39:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The reason I mentioned the FDL in the subject of this thread is binary: > * first of all, it would give us a clear opinion, as a group, on how > documents are to be handled. I, personally, felt there was a gap there, > and that that was the reason there was so much discussion about the > subject; because some people say "the FDL can't be free, since the rules > of the DFSG imply it isn't", whereas other people say "That doesn't > matter, since the DFSG is about software, not documentation". Having a > clear policy about documentation would most certainly stop that > discussion. These people are insane. Ignore them. They are, thankfully, low in number. It is a moderately regular occurrance on -legal that somebody tries the "Ah, but they're only *Guidelines*, so this [blatantly non-free thing] can go in" argument. Consider what the effect would be if we applied your reasoning to this case, and why we do not want to do so. > * Secondly, having rules that clearly define what documentation must > oblige to to be free would give us a strong base to discuss the issue > with the FSF. Right now, we're saying to the FSF "it isn't free, since > the rules of the DFSG imply it isn't", where they say "yeah, but this is > documentation, not software". Being essentially the same discussion, > having a strong base would have different results, in that it might > convince some people of the FSF to craft a free FDL. When discussing licensing issues with the FSF, we must never argue from the DFSG, because that argument is only convincing if the FSF also subscribes to the DFSG - which they don't. What we have actually been saying to the FSF is "The FDL has all these issues...". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp8WgQfK776E.pgp
Description: PGP signature