Re: Interpretation of the GR

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your logic; this reads like a
set of unrelated statements.  (Not meaning to flame or anything, I
just don't follow.)

The determination of distributability and of freedom are directly tied:
a work which can't be distributed reasonably violates DFSG#1 at its most
basic level.  I don't know how you can call distributability and
freedom orthogonal decisions.

> 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.

This is like a GR that says: "the GPL permits combining code with
proprietary systems, and Debian will do so and encourage its users to
do so".  It's patently false, and is merely a declaration of intent
to violate the license.

-- 
Glenn Maynard