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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:11:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
>  not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
>  documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
>  instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
>  non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a
>  success.
>         I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not,
>  hypocrisy . 

Whether or not anyone in Debian is taking a hypocritical position on this
issue[0], I think it would be very inappropriate to *chastize* anyone for
the fact that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.  The FSF have indeed never
claimed that the GFDL was a Free Software license, and they don't claim that
the same freedoms that are required for programs are required for
documentation, either -- a position that you may recall is shared by a
significant number of developers within Debian.

We may have decided that extending the same freedoms to documentation and
data as to programs is important enough for us to take a stand on, but by no
means does that justify haughtiness towards our fellows in the Free Software

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[0] Wwhen an open organization such as Debian has individual members who
hold *different* positions, one usually describes that as "schizophrenic",
not "hypocritical"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: