Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Keith Dunwoody <email@example.com> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Joerg Wendland <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
>>>>Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
>>>>Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
>>>>Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
>>>I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is "free enough"
>>>for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules
>>>but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of
>>>GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve
>>>freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion
>> Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL
>> meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly,
>> you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the
>> DFSG and does so.
> So why was option 2 included on the survey anyway, if all you're going
> to do is tell people who voted for option 2 that they're wrong?
Neither Matthew nor I are in any way involved with running the
survey. I'm not even a Debian Developer. Option 2 is, however,
internally inconsistent. I've only seen one person -- Joerg Wendland
-- select it so far, and after marking as his vote, "The GFDL is
DFSG-compliant," he has further explained that he didn't *actually*
think the GFDL met the terms of the DFSG, but that he thought that:
* The GFDL shouldn't have to meet the terms of the DFSG.
* Authors should be able to license things as they please.
* The GFDL is a good licence.
* What? The moral quality of a license is not reflected in its DFSG
status? I will hear no slur upon the beard of RMS, for my heart
beats with revolutionary fervor for the sake of our users. Debian
should distribute all good things. RFP: Bunnies.
In other words, he lied. It may not have been an intentional
deception -- it's possible he just can't understand the difference
between "The GFDL is DFSG-free" and "I don't think the DFSG should
apply to the GFDL". From his other posts, he appears to be a
postmodernist, so this is quite possible: the claim that all opinions
are equally valid, sacrosanct, and incontrovertible is not compatible
with constructive rational debate.
 "Bunnies" are a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation,
and are dual licensed under the MS Soul-Sucking EULA and the GFDL.
 Neither are comments about the beard of RMS or speculations as to
the ungulate heritage of postmodernists, I know. Sorry.
Brian T. Sniffen email@example.com