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

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

(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which
has been pointed out elsewhere...)

On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 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.

The documentation published by the Free Software Foundation uses
invariant sections extensively. Since these are the manuals a few people
are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc
solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation
from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: