Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
> with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this
> license would require significant additional permission
> statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
> license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
> inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
Note: I do not believe that documentation should be subject to
the same specific guidelines for determining freeness as is
programs, and I do not believe the reading of the social
contract which implies that Debian cannot contain items which
are not software at all. However I do believe, that the GFDL
version 1.3 as written contain clauses which are likely to also
fail any more relevant DFSG-like guidelines for determining if
it is free.
Specifically these are the various restrictions on the techni-
calities of modifying and copying the work. These restrictions
mean that many acts that can reasonably be expected to be
permitted for free works are suddenly banned because of
technicalities.
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible
> with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works
> under this license would require no additional permission
> statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
> license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
> inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible
> with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain
> restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the
> copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under
> this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case
> basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered
> Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>
--
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Reply to: