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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise



Le lun 25/08/2003 à 17:21, Richard Stallman a écrit :
>     Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
>     FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
> 
> I think I see two misunderstandings here.  Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
> 
> First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
> question of which GFDL-covered documents to accept.  I have therefore
> been trying to convince Debian developers that the GFDL is a free
> license and should be accepted.  Has Debian actually made this
> decision?

Regarding the results of the survey on this issue, almost everyone on
that list agrees on the fact a document with invariant sections cannot
be considered as free. Furthermore, a large majority thinks that no
GFDL'ed document can be considered at suitable for Debian main.

However, several developers believe we should have different rules for
documentation. It is not likely to happen before a long time, as it
requires changing the social contract, and they will encounter strong
opposition.

No decision has been made yet, but it is quite likely that after the
sarge release (which will include GFDL'ed documents as stated by the
Release Manager), some or all documents under the GFDL are removed from
our distribution and moved to non-free.

> We won't try to go beyond that until after GPL 3 is ready--and
> we're not making much progress on GPL 3 due to lack of manpower.

As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections
or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter
of concern on this list.

Regards,
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


Reply to: