On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400 Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> wrote: > "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> writes: > > > It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical > > writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software > > and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them > > [1]. It is clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to > > have documentation licensed under FDL in Debian: they do not want to > > violate DFSG [2]. > > > > 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html > > 2. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines > > The problem here is that (without going into the details) > communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down. > Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of the > FSF and so cannot speak to that, I do think that Debian has legitimate > concerns about the freedom of the GFDL. There has been continuing discussion and debate on the GFDL for what, years now? There has been no breakdown of communication. "There problem here is that" the FSF considers the GFDL as a Free license, or at least "free enough". Debian does not. Pretty simple, it's difficult for me to understand how people miss it :)
Attachment:
pgpOzYXLphnqv.pgp
Description: PGP signature