Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I assert that this interpretation is most faithful to the arguments
> > presented by proponents of Amendment A during the discussion. [...]
I assert that their arguments are not part of the position statement
(= not part of what was approved by vote) and that trying to interpret
hidden meanings of the position statement is daft.
[...]
> We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF),
Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html
but the not-for-debian comment wasn't very long after that.
[...]
> (I still wonder: the FSF has an upgrade mechanism for its licenses, has
> known about this problem for years, and has acknowledged it as a problem.
> Where the hell is the fixed license? The only reason Debian is expending
> so much time on this is because of the FSF's stonewalling. So much of
> this would be simpler if the FSF would fulfill their responsibility of
> fixing their license, which they assumed when they begin proliferating
> it.)
It's delayed until after GPLv3. It seems that FSF won't run concurrent
consultations. See message from Chancellor of FSF Europe Chapter Italy:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-January/005448.html
FSF Europe seem very friendly, open and transparent, even when I disagree
with them about a topic.
In the meantime, some supporters like savannah-hackers want to require
use of the buggy FDL before hackers may use FSF services. See:
http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4303
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2006-03/msg00076.html
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: