Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:01 -0400
Richard Stallman <email@example.com> wrote:
> If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
> with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
> distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
> fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative
> guidelines that should apply to documentation.
> I don't plan to discuss even small GFDL changes here. I think people
> will present a proposal for guidelines for free documentation for
As has been pointed out before, such a proposal doesn't belong here. The
function of -legal is to interpret the DFSG and vet the free-ness of
software licenses in accordance with said interpretation. It is *not*
its role to decide which parts of Debian the DFSG should adhere to (or
not). Such a proposal should be brought up on -project if and when
anyone gets around to actually writing it.
Of course (IMHO) they'd be wasting their time. Said proposal would have
a near-zero chance of passing unless accompanied with a convincing
rationale for why a different measure of freedom is necessary, and I
sincerely doubt that "We must have invariant sections to make sure that
everyone receives a copy of the GNU Manifesto together with the
manual" will pass muster in this regard.
 Ok, so the Freedom of modifiability has been slain on the altar of
"getting the word out". Presumably the next iteration of the license
will have a clause forcing every recipient of the software to *read* the
 Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
*still* be more widespread, or at least be seen as synonymous with "Free
Software" (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software]
concatenation shows) presumably some even more drastic concessions will
have to be made in the name of increasing mindshare?