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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:20:32 -0500, Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.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
>> free.

> 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
 DFSG requirements.

> 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
 Etch  release.

> "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
>> statement.

> 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
> before.

        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   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: