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

seeking FDL 1.2 draft comment summary



Gentlemen,

At <http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html>, the following text can be
found:

"On 7 February 2002, the FSF released a draft of the GNU Free
Documentation License, Version 1.2 for comment. The comment period lasts
for three weeks, until 1 March 2002. If you have comments on this draft,
please direct them to <fdl-comments@fsf.org> by 1 March 2002.

"The FSF always seeks input from the community at large before adopting
a new version of our Free licenses. We consider all feedback carefully;
however we may not be able to respond to each comment individually. At
the end of the comment period, we will post a summary of the most common
comments."

The comment period concluded a two-and-a-half months ago, and still
there is no sign of any public posting of comments received by the FSF,
or any summary thereof.  I think this lag stretches the meaning of "at
the end of the comment period".

Several Debian Developers participated in your comment process and we
are extremely interested in what perspectives may have been raised by
other parties.  We are also interested in the FSF's position on the
feedback it received, and whether and how the feedback has influenced
the forthcoming revision of the GNU FDL.

I sent a message regarding this very subject on 1 April[1], and received
absolutely no reply of any sort from anyone affiliated with FSF[2].

Please acknowledge your receipt of this message, and advise as to the
current disposition of the GNU FDL revision process.  The current
version of the GNU FDL can be applied in ways that a substantial number
of Debian developers regard as non-free[3], and more to the point some GNU
Manuals will be impacted by our assessment of the license.  If a new
version of the GNU FDL is not forthcoming from the Free Software
Foundation, then Debian will need to make its evaluations based on the
current version; we cannot table these issues indefinitely.

Thank you for your attention, and for your encouragement of community
participation when making strategic decisions about future versions of
the licenses you endorse.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00002.html

[2] Clarification: I did receive a private reply from a person
affiliated with the FSF, but who attested that he had nothing to do with
the development of the FDL, and appears to be as much of an outsider to
the process as Debian is.  I received no reply from Richard M. Stallman,
Bradley Kuhn, Eben Moglen, or anyone purporting to speak for any person
of leadership in the FSF.

[3] The GNU FDL and the issues it was designed to address sparked
massive discussions within Debian; there is clearly a demand for a
copyleft that deals with materials that aren't obviously software.
References to the "root nodes" of several discussion threads follow.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00096.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00126.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00000.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00094.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00100.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00001.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00007.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00052.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00276.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00336.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00358.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00361.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00394.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00250.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00114.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00009.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00054.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00104.html

Also, several threads contained direct commentary on the FDL 1.2 draft:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00046.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     If you have the slightest bit of
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     intellectual integrity you cannot
branden@debian.org                 |     support the government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- anonymous

Attachment: pgpnMmhScBlyJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: