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.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Stay away from hurricanes for a while.
Reply to: