[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Which leads us to a dilemma: the longer the GFDL remain
>  unchallenged, the more entrenched it gets. There is also evidence
>  that people are using invariant sections in a manner not envisaged by
>  the authors of the GFDL: Ralf Hildebrandt's postfix  page used to
>  have this license statement: `
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms
> of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version
> published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being
> THE WHOLE DOCUMENT (each section is invariant). No Front- or Back-Cover Texts
> are provided. '
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	I think the conclusions drawn by the Debian community need to
>  be disseminated to the free software community,  and the sooner the
>  better; I've been dissuaded from doing that by the dangling carrot of
>  the looming fix to the license. But, at some point, unless one can
>  bite into the carrot, it fails to be a motivator.

You know, nothing is stopping package maintainers from talking to their
upstreams about the problem and helping them choose a license other then
the GFDL for their documentation. I already have. I don't know if making
slashdot again with a position paper is the most effective way to cut
down on the number of GFDLed works.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: