Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:20:32 -0500, Christopher Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR that
>> states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections do
>> not fall afoul of the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic
>> than stating we may include GFDL licensed works without invariant
>> sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed
> It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was
> attempting to do
> - to establish a position statement stating that
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free
> (and therefore acceptable in main). Is your point that the amendment
> wasn't sufficiently explicit?
My point is that it is about including works licensed under
the GFDL, with no invariant sections, into main -- which is a
different stastement than averring that such works are free, and meet
> Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were
> to modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then
> consider it as not requiring supermajority?
No necessarily. I would probably consider it a separate issue
from issuing a position statement explaining the projects decision to
drop GFDL licensed works, and I would consider it a move to override
the release team statement about removing GFDL licensed works for the
> "Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
> Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
> them is granted."
This does not mean that such works are free, just that we
shall include them in main, will-ye, nil-ye.
> This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't
> engaging in special pleading, but view the
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free.
I do not think that statement parses the way you think it
>> So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position
> Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable
> and DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you
> will, rather than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained
> multiple options with wildly varying intentions and viewpoints
The original GR is explaining why the project considers the
licenses non-free, since the delegates have already so decided
(having GFDL licensed works is now deemed non-free).
Overriding that decision is a different kettle of fish.
"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." Karl
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C