Re: Gnus Manual License
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:09:49 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:34:13 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> said:
>>
>>> If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not),
>>> I would consider GFDLed documentation with the standard GNU
>>> project cover texts in their _current_ form sufficient for
>>> inclusion into main as long as no invariant sections are involved.
>>
>> This would be enough to get the package removed from main by the
>> FTP masters: the general resolution that was passed (by a 3:1 super
>> majority) has moved such decisions out of individual hands;
>> deciding to include these cover texts would not be a violation of
>> the social contract.
> I presume you mean "would be".
> I am afraid that the vote was rigged in that respect. There was no
> option to a) permit cover texts but no invariant sections, b) permit
> reasonable cover texts, c) leave things to the judgment of the
> package manager.
Rigged? I suppose since you are not a DD, you could be
forgiven not knowing how the voting system is set up. If people had
actually wanted that option, any 6 people could have added such an
option to the ballot. Nobody did.
> All that was possible to vote on is a) permit any use of GFDL into
> main, b) permit no use of GFDL in main, c) permit use of GFDL into
> main without any front covers, back covers, invariable sections.
> However, concerning the GFDL, the vote was put up in a manner that
> refuses to discriminate between appropriate use and utter abuse of
> the GFDL's provisions for cover texts.
What you call abuse is still behaviour that does not ciolate
the GFDL.
> Given that the Debian community was not even given an option that
> would have been able to discriminate between license use and license
> abuse, I find it somewhat distasteful to suggest that the community
> had preferred the outcome over an option that was not even made
> available.
And you would be patently wrong to suggest that -- since a
community that wanted to vote that way would have just added such an
option to the ballot. But they did not. And they voted with a super
majority with the option that won.
Sounds like a lot of crying over opinions voiced by the Debian
voters -- who did not elect to add an option on the ballot, and did
not go that route. Calling votes rigged is not only slanderous --
but kinda pitiful.
manoj
--
Wait ... is this a FUN THING or the END of LIFE in Petticoat
Junction??
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: