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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:04:23 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> said: 

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:46:53AM -0500, 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. '
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> That's simply inconsistent with the text of the GFDL, and I'd guess
> it probably renders it undistributable (but IANAL). Invariant
> Sections must be Secondary, so unless the entire document falls
> outside its own overall subject the whole document cannot be
> Invariant. (I guess you know this, but just to spell it out ...)

	Yes, thast was indeed an extreme (and untenable) case, and it
 has now been fixed by the author. Perhaps it was a bad example to
 underscore the point I was attempting to make: which is that as long
 aswe keep the lid on the probelms we found in the gfdl, there are
 people out there unaware of these issues, and lots of documentation
 continues to go under a non-free license, from people who mean well.

	We have to balance the carrot (the possibility that RMS can
 indeed be swayed, and the GFDL changed) versus the stick (we continue
 to ship non-free documentation in main, and more and more free
 documentation transitions to non-free documentation, since people are
 not aware of the problems).

	I understand our exit strategy is to go with the position
 statement if ever the talks break down. How do we handle the
 situation where, with the best of intents, the talks never break
 down, but there never is any concrete, visible progress?

He's dead, Jim.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: