DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd
Hi,
If we were to deal with all these issues on one ballot, it
would have to take the form somewhat like this:
A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is
wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision,
and issue the following statement "..."
B) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free
does not hold for works without invariant sections, modify the
delegated decision to allow works with no invariant sections in
main, and issue the following statement "..."
C) Yes, GFDL licensed works are non-free, but all such should be
allowed in main anyway, since they are so important. Modify the SC,
and issue the following statement "..." 3:1
D) Yes, GFDL licensed works are non-free, including those without
invariant sections, but without invariant sections we should allow
them in main, since the infractions are minor. Modify the SC,
and issue the following statement "..." 3:1
E) The decision of the delegates was fine, issue the following
position statement "..." [This is aj's proposal]
F) The decision of the delegates was fine, but we need issue no
position statement, since it can inflame members of the
community. Take no further action. (This is tantamount to the
default option, but added here for finer granularity of opinions).
G) Further discussion.
However, I am not in a position to hammer out and craft all
these diverse ballot options -- let the proponents decide. I
currently am holding the amendment to be (D), as written, and the
original proposal to be (E).
If there are people who seriously espouse options A, B, and C,
they should offer such amendments, or even a separate GR to determine
the handling of the GFDL licensed works, with or without the
invariant clauses.
manoj
--
Microwaves frizz your heir.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: