Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Essentially what we'll have to do is convince upstreams that
> Debian's definition of "free" is superior to the FSF's definition.
> There's a good chance we'd get laughed out of the room...
Efforts have been underway for a while now to work with the authors of
the GFDL itself to deal with the issues inherent in the license itself
rather than dealing with the authors of the multitude of packages
themselves.
I personally have yet to be laughed out of the room when I've had a
chance to explain to people exactly what is wrong with the GFDL and
why they should be interested in using (or dual licensing under) other
licences until these issues have been addressed. I largely suspect
many people who use the GFDL aren't really aware of the restrictions
that the license imposes on those who would use GFDLed works.
> By expelling the GFDL from Debian, we would distance ourselves from
> the rest of the free software community [...] We really need to be
> sure that's a good idea and is what we want to do before making that
> commitment.
We've been seriously thinking about these issues for the past few
years. In fact, one of the reasons why these works haven't been
removed from Debian like any other non DFSG free work would be is
precisely because it is such a major step; one that we'd rather not
have to take.
> no one seems to be questioning *our* definition of "free". We
> readily reject the FSF's definition,
I don't believe anyone is rejecting the FSF's definition. In fact,
many of us who dislike the current version of the GFDL feel that the
GFDL goes against the FSF's own definition. If anything, we're
disagreeing with certain members of the FSF's interpretation of their
definition as it applies to documentation.
> However, we must also be careful not to mindlessly follow the
> DFSG--after all, it was written in a different time when little
> thought was given to documentation licenses.
The hundreds, no thousands, of messages that have been sent regarding
this issue indicate, at least to me, that we are not mindlessly
following or rejecting the DFSG. That such works are still in Debian
and that we are even planning on releasing them in place is an example
of that.
Don Armstrong
--
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
tropicana.]
-- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: