On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
> >
> > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the
> > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful
> > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and
> > how that springs from the DFSG.
> >
> > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the
> > process of justification that we have gone through.
>
> If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of,
> it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these
> carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole.
Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft
position statement on the GNU FDL[2].
If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as
a whole", I'd appreciate it.
Given that Raul himself, after a thread that went several directions, said
"I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it currently stands
should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about that."[3], we seem to
be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the
DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help.
[1] Message-ID: <87llka3cuv.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00030.html
[2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
[3] Message-ID: <20040506122940.O13880@links.magenta.com>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00235.html
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
branden@debian.org | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature