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

For those who care about the GR



On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:26:12 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> Why should it be a separate GR? That's seems both unnecessary and a
> bad idea; what's the point in overriding decisions about the GFDL,
> if it is then declared non-free anyway?

        Well, here is one view of how things stand.

 Issue 1
 =======

 Q1) Are GFDL licensed works non-free?

   Ans: With invariant texts, there does not seem to be any question

  Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?

   Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
   disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
   explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines.

   The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that
   the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders
   about absence of invariant clauses.

   Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions
   of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this
   impacts issue 2.

        So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
 body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn
 something seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).

        So, if the GFDL is non-free, as a matter of fact, not of
 opinion, then there is no room for the GR disputing that.  If it is a
 matter of opinion, then by a GR, the developers should be able to
 overrule the opinions of the delegates.

        I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
 works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
 fact.


 Issue 2
 =======

        Given that the delegates have decided that GFDL licensed works
 are not fit for Etch, we are seeking to issue a position statement
 explaining our stance, and what would be needed to change the
 license.

        Now, if the first issue is resolved, then the position
 statement would need to be adapted to the resolution of question 1.1
 above (currently, I hold that Answer 1.1 is "non-free" -- and hence
 the amendment needs a 3:1 super majority and would need us to change
 the SC).  If the developers, via a GR, reverse that stance, then the
 position statement can include wording to the effect that works
 licensed under the GFDL can be included in main if they have no
 invariant sections.


        So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
 body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
 resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
 without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the
 license is currently written.

        manoj
-- 
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." Jean
Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Attachment: pgp0PCpZH85EQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: