Bug#193787: Oh boy...
Important citations:
* Motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue (by Branden
Robinson)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00189.html
(Note that the following discussion contains lots of agreement and no
serious opposition.)
* Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL (by Anthony Towns)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
(Note that the followup consists entirely of details. There is no
real disagreement by this point.)
* The FSF is not changing their position. (For the umpteenth time.)
Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.res.in>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00240.html
(& following.)
It's obviously important to have an official FAQ on the issue available,
and I'm sure it will be soon. But as someone who likes Debian to remain 100%
free software, I think the consensus on debian-legal is really more than
sufficient to require the movement of GFDL-with-invariant-sections material
into non-free. Especially considering that the FSF appears unwilling to
budge. Also especially considering it may take a while to actually do.
:-( At the moment GCC is the only package with invariant-section material
which I use, which is why I specifically filed bugs against it.
I don't want this to *prevent* new versions of GCC from propagating into
testing; the bug can be marked 'woody,sarge,sid' since it's currently
everywhere.
More citations:
---
These aren't necessarily the best or clearest statements of these
individuals' opinions; I just ran through until I got a statement from as
many of the people who discussed it as possible. Some of them (Thomas
Bushnell, Branden Robinson, etc.) expressed their full opinions so long
ago I could only find followups. There are more people than listed
here.
* It's non-free.
James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00176.html
* Non-free.
Brian T. Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00257.html
* Non-free.
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00143.html
* Non-free.
Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html
* Non-free.
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00058.html
* Non-free.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00043.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00106.html
* Non-free
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00108.html
* Non-free.
Joe Wrechnig <piman@debian.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00076.html
* Non-free.
Martin Wheeler <msw@startext.demon.co.uk>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00055.html
* Non-free.
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00052.html
* Non-free.
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00057.html
* Non-free.
Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00067.html
* Non-free.
Richard Braakman <dark@cs120102.pp.htv.fi>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00034.html
* Non-free.
Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00030.html
* Non-free.
Matthew Palmer <mjp16@ieee.uow.edu.au>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00273.html
* Non-free.
MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00352.html
* Non-free.
Peter S Galbraith <psg@debian.org>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00260.html
Reply to: