Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
>> I think your suggestion is the best chance at making sense of the GR
>> that I've seen so far, but I would make one change: it *should* in fact
>> be applicable only to the GFDL.
>
> Doing so would mean that we'd need to have a separate GR for each
> problematic license we encounter. We have to try to extract some
> general principles from it, or everything becomes a farce.
Why? If the GR stated general principles that would be reasonable, but
it didn't. Attributing general principles to those who voted for the GR
-- many of whom probably voted as they did for different reasons --
isn't justified.
If this is essentially a judgement call by the developers the only
reasonable course would be to go back for another GR if another such
case comes up.
>> One could interpret the GR as a judgement call on the part of the
>> developers that we will give the FSF the benefit of the doubt in
>> this case. As such, it's not reasonable to extend that same benefit
>> to other licenses or license authors without another GR that covers
>> those cases as well.
>
> I am strongly opposed to give the FSF any particular benefit of doubt
> that does not apply to equally other licensors. In my opinion the
> actions of the FSF in recent years have shown that they are not worthy
> of such a singular benefit.
Clearly, the developers as a whole (as expressed in the GR) disagree
with you. Personally, my trust in the FSF has been seriously damaged by
this affair as well. Perhaps we on d-l didn't argue our case
effectively -- not unlikely, if others here feel as exhausted of the
subject as I do. For whatever reason, the developers as a whole feel
that we should read the GFDL generously. But they specifically didn't
say anything about any other license.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: