Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

=== CUT HERE ===

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.

  [   ]  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.

  [   ]  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.

  [ X ]  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.

=== CUT HERE ===

Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. Though, the DFSG rules can not easily applied to
documentation ("if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a
nail" is IMHO not particulare usefull to solving problems). The
conclusion is that we need rules for documentation. ("Debian Free
Documentation Guidelines")

Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as
good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for
sarge (i.e. now).

So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way "in the
spirit" of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain
restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which we always
did accept as invariant and which is invariant by law). However, don't
expect me to back this up. There is nothing which can IMHO be used as
basis, because the DFSG cannot really apply (see above). And opinion
is not a good basis for a discussion.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C