Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> Another one would be from GNU maintainers to release two versions of
> their manuals:
> - the complete GFDLed one
> - a GPLed one where the invariant section are removed
If such a version exists.
> But I see many reasons against this solution. If this kind of solution
> can be accepted, it will probably take some time.
>
> > The GNU project is free to set up it's own apt-get repository to distribute
> > items which it feels should be in the Debian archive but which we can't
> > distribute. You'll have to work out some way to publicise it to users,
> > since, as you have to understand, we can't have any part in recommending
> > non-free software to our users[1].
>
> I agree with your first phrase. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the
> last one: Debian already recommends non-free software to users by
> provide apt-get links to these softwares, even if in theory non-free
> is not part of Debian.
Yes, but not if we went ahead with the non-free purge, which is what he
meant, surely.
> And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about
> the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not
> DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is
> equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which
> provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit
> strange to study line by line a license text to find reasons of
> DFSG-non compliance and suddenly, because of one potential problem
> (you're not forced to use invariant options!), concluding that this
> license is completely non-free, isn't it?
Why not? It's what we do with all licenses.
I see that in the rest of the long thread, you took the worst examples
of non-free content (flash) to compare it with a GDFL'ed document.
That's an interesting strategy. But you could also compare it with
other packages in non-free that are free except that they require
registration for non-commercial use (e.g. scilab). Suddenly the
comparison isn't so convincing.
Peter
Reply to: