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

Re: For those who care about the GR



On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> 
said:
> > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 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.

> > My reading of all the options of this GR so far have the effect of
> > stating how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect
> > to the GFDL.

>         I beg to differ. The original proposal was to explain the
>  stance Debian has already taken, as evidenced  by the BTS usertags
>  gfdl and nonfree-doc, and the release team statement -- and how the
>  license may be fixed.

Well, I believe that the original proposal was to *determine* the stance 
Debian should take. Anyway, you asked, as Project Secretary, for arguments 
and guidance from developers, so I provied my input.

>         If you someone wants to change how Debian interprets the GFDL,
>  it should be a separate issue -- and quite likely should be done
>  before. Why is it that no one cared to override the delegates
>  decision until a statement explaining the decision is being issued?

Well, this last paragraph makes it sound to me like you've already made up 
your mind. If you are actually interested in why I personally didn't 
publicly make a big deal about the delegates decision, I'd be happy to 
discuss it some other time, but I don't think my action or inaction 
actually relevent to this GR.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpkUD7GIM3fZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: