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

[STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

I'm announcing a "closing of the polls" date for this survey.  Of
course, I can't stop people from replying after that date, and don't
really see a reason to ask them not to.

I will tabulate "final" results based on survey responses received by
the debian-legal mailing list as of Thursday, 28 August, 0500 UTC.

These "final" results can be used by Debian Weekly News, Linux Weekly
News, and similar news sites in the event they have a slow enough news
week that this survey merits reporting.

(That date is approximately 10 minutes shy of one week after the date
the survey was posted.)

Making the survey period one week also allows a bit of time for people
who may read about this survey elsewhere (such as debian-devel or Debian
Weekly News, should they choose to cover it in the next issue) to

For the curious, here are the results so far.  Part 2 (respondent
status) is on the horizontal axis and Part 1 (DFSG-freeness of GNU FDL
1.2) is on the vertical axis.

                                             possible     non-
                                 developers developers developers
option 1 ("no")                     16          3         16
option 2 ("yes")                     1          0          0
option 3 ("sometimes")              10          2          4
option 4 ("none of the above")       1          0          1

(NOTE: This may be off by one or two votes.  Please don't regard it as

Possible developers are people who claimed to be Debian Developers but
did not have a well-formed GPG signature on their responses, so I was
unable to verify their claims.

G. Branden Robinson                |    Ambition: an overmastering desire
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    to be vilified by enemies while
branden@debian.org                 |    living and ridiculed by friends
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    when dead.        -- Ambrose Bierce

Attachment: pgpTWyMG08XoU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: