Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:40:56 +0200, Benj Mako Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> The FSF has been communicating with us regularly and there does seem
>> to be movement inside -- just not as much as anyone (the FSF or us)
>> would like.
I wish the fact that many *FSF* developers see problems with the GFDL would
make the FSF move faster.
> Which leads us to a dilemma: the longer the GFDL remain
> unchallenged, the more entrenched it gets.
> 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.
Yep. And frankly, we've been expecting the fix for longer than six months.
Originally, there was the comment period for the GFDL revision; the
informal complaints to the FSF only started *after* the comments about the
problems were ignored. Debian-legal only managed to get an FSF person to
talk to us some time after *that*.
Since then, I see every reason for the pro-Invariant-Section parts of the
FSF to delay, since it entrenches the GFDL further. In contrast, delay
hurts the proponents of Free Software licenses for documentation, for the
> I ask again: how long should we give the rapproachment process
> this time around? How long do we wait hoping for concrete meovement
> (not just private indications that can't be shared with the likes of
> me) before we say fish or cut bait?
One year, starting from the committee formation? That would be October. I
sure don't think anything longer is reasonable!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.