Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
* Joe Wreschnig (email@example.com) [030828 19:50]:
> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > 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.
We seem to have different views on what's right. IMHO the "right
thing" is to make a DFDG, in other views the "right thing" is to act
on the DFSG. This discussion is IMHO valuable, but: We seem to have
the same conclusion about most actions what should be done "now",
so the difference in motivations should not stop this to happen.
 as I said: IMHO the DFSG doesn't really apply, but only as a "first
aid" as long as we don't have another guide.
 "now" could also be after sarge, that's a different discussion.
 We definitly shouldn't make another guide while the argument about
the GFDL is so hot. First solve this issue (IMHO removing or replacing
the GFDL-docus with invariant sections) and then doing a guide
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C