Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
The obvious consequence is that any license with similar practical problems
will also be considered free, and--going one small step further--licenses
with serious problems in general will be considered free.
This GR has tainted the "DFSG-free" label, probably permanently.
Striving to be DFSG-free has historically been a strong force in
encouraging people to genuinely release software freely; it's been
my primary motivation for participating here. From what I can see,
Debian has thrown that away.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 05:37:46PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >This
> >GR also did not say "the GFDL is free, as long as this and that
> >interpretation of the license are held"; it makes no such qualification.
>
> The GR just says:
>
> At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU
> Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do
> fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> It does not say whether the interpretation of the DFSG or the
> interpretation of the license is wrong; I suggest that means we are free
> to pick, on a problem-by-problem basis, which one is wrong.
This is a major contrivance. The GR made no such qualification. It
doesn't say "under the FSF's interpretation of the license" or "if
our interpretation holds".
I'm a little confused, by the way. The thread start quoted:
"> Option 2 "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free"
not "invariant sections". "Invariant sections" is a specific term in
the GFDL; "unmodifiable sections" is different, and would include front-
and back-cover texts as well.
> >I can put a document under the GFDL, and say "the 'technical measures'
> >clause is, in fact, intended to prohibit encrypting the document".
> >That's not bending or twisting the license; it's merely confirming a
> >straightforward interpretation.
>
> Sure. And we could decide that if you do that, we'll treat you just like
> UW with respect to Pine.
Not without another GR to override this one. The GR says the GFDL is free,
and I'd be using the GFDL with a perfectly natural interpretation. UW did
not use a natural reading of its license; it used a deliberately twisted one.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: