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

Re: GNU FDL and Debian

Jeremy Hankins said:
>On debian-legal, yes.  But we've had very little actual discussion
>with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position.  In fact,
>that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with
>RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least
>officially, discuss the issue?  Since he's very busy, and (not
>entirely without reason) reluctant to discuss the issue in a context
>that he feels has become emotionally charged, that would be very
>useful.  As far as I know, we never got an answer.

We effectively got the answer "No".  I asked him if he could tell us of 
anyone else who could discuss the issue as a representative of the FSF, and 
he said "No, I won't give you anyone else's name."

So he is apparently the only person who can discuss the issue as a 
representative of the FSF, and he has outright refused to make any changes.

It really is time for Debian to put out an official statement on the GFDL.  
Matthias Klose has said that he is waiting for an offficial statement before 
removing the non-free documentation from the GCC packages, even the ones with 
Invariant Sections.  I'd really like this non-free stuff to be out of sarge 
(although there is an 'ignore-sarge' tag on the corresponding bug).

I can't attempt to make an Official Debian Statement, since I'm not a DD.  
But people doing this should feel free to use any part of my webpage, as it's 
public domain.  And Anthony Towns' (?) previous draft statement is good to 
lift from as well, presuming he doesn't mind.


Reply to: