Re: Interpretation of the GR
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:
> If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
> "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant
> to freeness". A GR that calls a work Free is not orthogonal to
> distributability; it's intrinsically tied to it.
The issues aren't orthogonal, but the decisions are. One decision
(the GR) is made by debian developers. The other is made by the
courts. The courts don't care about the GR if they have to decide on
whether a GFDL work is distributable via debian infrastructure.
Consequently, there's no reason to take the GR into account when
deciding whether GFDL works are distributable. It's irrelevant to that
discussion.
What's more, your opinion (or mine) on whether the GFDL is distributable
given debian infrastructure is also irrelevant, because it carries no
weight. The GR isn't going to get changed because you or I believe GFDL
works aren't distributable -- not unless we can convince enough other
people of that to get another GR passed.
On the other hand, if we had a court decision or legal advice from a
lawyer stating that we can't distribute GFDL works, I imagine that that
would have a profound effect on the interpretation that debian
developers would apply to the GFDL.
> (Limiting this response to the question or orthogonality, leaving the
> question of whether #1 is true or not to other subthreads.)
Yup.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: