Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part "California-style"
> ballot here:
> 1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
> 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
> GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
> I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
> established that the answer to question 1 is "yes".
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been
a lot of is folks arguing that we should argue about whether the DFSG
applies to documentation. A lot of statements like "there might be a
difference in the standards to apply" and "we should decide whether
to apply different standards." A couple of folks have gone so far as
to *assert* that different standards should apply, but when pressed
their response is essentially: "Well, prove me wrong!" and "I don't
know what they are, but the GFDL is ok!"
Please, if someone actually believes that different standards should
be applied to documentation than to other software, state your case.
Because for the life of me, and despite all the verbiage on the topic,
I have no idea even what standards you *want* to apply. Intuitions on
the subject are fine, and a great starting point. But they're just a
starting point -- you need to actually do the work of developing them
before you can make your case.
Until someone goes so far as to actually put forth an argument, I
see no reason to be asking what people think on the subject.
 Well, one argument has been made: that without invariant text
there's no way to defend against mis-attribution. But that's
demonstrably false -- and it's been demonstrated.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03