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

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

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson 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

> I am seeking seconds for this proposal.
> [1] I don't restrict this to GNU FDL-licensed documents that have Cover
> Texts or Invariant Sections because previous discussions have indicated
> that there may be still other problems with the GNU FDL 1.2.  I seem to
> recall someone raising a fairly persuasive critique of section 4K, for
> instance.  Thus, if we're going to nail some theses to the church door,
> we might as well make sure that they're comprehensive.
> [2] possibly through a mass bug-filing, but I leave this detail to
> future determination

I strongly support this proposal.


Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Stay away from hurricanes for a while.

Reply to: