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

Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:

> I propose that we:
> 	* draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
> 	  section-by-section our problems with the license
> 	* draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this
> 	  issue
> 	* draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add
> 	  riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are
> 	  DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses
> 	  that are also DFSG-free
> Then:
> 	* exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU
> 	  FDL[1]
> 	* contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of
> 	  each affected source package, and include pointers to the
> 	  above documents
> 	* post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce
> 	  and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by
> 	  whatever later actions occur
> 	* give people some time to consider and act upon the above
> 	  contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound
> 	  sand, others won't reply at all)
> 	* remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not
> 	  been brought into compliance with the DFSG
> This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot
> headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to
> me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or
> our users.  Either that we feel the GNU FDL is being used in main and
> contrib in ways that are not DFSG-free, or we don't, and either way we
> need to get ourselves squarely on the record.
> I am seeking seconds for this proposal.

In as much as I can propose that people do work (e.g. this tasks isn't
done).  I second the motion that, should this work be done, it would
carry the weight of an official Debian position.


Attachment: pgpC84c0WgH2t.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: