Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does
this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the
GFDL itself? (If I was a DD I would vote for Option 2 myself, and I
think that it is acceptable to have a requirement that the license
itself be included and not modified.)
Andrew
On 3/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
> >The winners are:
> > Option 2 "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free"
> >
> Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority;
> chaos is preserved for another day.[0]
>
> However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
> overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
> a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
> future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the
> DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough, point-by-point
> rebuttal of the position statement was given on -vote or -legal (to the
> best of my knowledge; I'd love to be wrong).
>
> I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each
> problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make
> things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license,
> stop nit-picking so much."
>
> So, without further ado, my attempt at this:
>
> _1. The "DRM" Restriction._
>
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has been
> mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider "you
> must make all your files a+r, etc." a free license. I propose that the
> Project is telling us that something along the following is the true
> reading:
>
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
> copies you make or distribute [to him]"
>
> This re-wording seems to clear up the three problems identified in [2].
>
>
> _2. Transparent and Opaque copies_
>
> This must be another mis-reading. Just as when you put a CD-ROM inside
> the box with a book you are "includ[ing] a machine-readable Transparent
> copy", so are you when you put the transparent copy alongside the opaque
> copy on an FTP server. (This even seems somewhat acceptable as an
> interpretation, considering the FSF's stated views in the GPL FAQ)
>
>
> 3. Invariant Sections
>
> Here, the Project agrees with us.
>
>
>
> And then, [2] covers the more-detailed problems with the GFDL. I think
> that makes a subject for another message...
>
>
> _FOOTNOTES_
>
> 0. Foundation documents are best not amended via hand waving but
> rather via clear changes; I have no idea how we'd continue to vet
> licenses had the hand-waving passed.
> 1. Not technically, but practically: -legal can't be overridden by GR
> since it can't actually make decisions.
> 2. http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdlinux@jabber.org.au
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Reply to: