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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Matthew Palmer <mjp16@ieee.uow.edu.au> writes:

> Why can't the DFSG be modified to accomodate the restrictions imposed by the
> FDL?  After all, RMS endorses it, so why shouldn't you?
> The Debian Free Software Guidelines, combined with the Social Contract, are
> the basic tenets by which Debian is guided.  The DFSG has stood well with
> both Debian Developers and the Free Software community for some time, and is
> widely regarded as the canonical statement of what makes free software Free
> (the Open Source Definition [I think] was based on the DFSG).  As such,
> changing the DFSG would be widely seen as a major compromise of the
> principles the Debian project was founded on, and continues to be based on
> today, as well as a key definition of what it means for software to be Free.
> On a more practical note, changing the DFSG requires a General Resolution of
> Debian Developers, a large logistical task and not one which should be
> undertaken lightly.
> ---[END]---
> OK, so maybe it wasn't quite so simple after all.
> I'm not putting that up as the canonical form of the Q&A, but it reinforces
> to me why the GFDL needs fixing, and not us.

This says to me "It's hard to change the DFSG, and the DFSG is
respected."  Neither of those seems like a good reason for the GFDL to
change.  I think your argument could be much stronger if it included a
"because we're right" paragraph.


Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: