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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> a tapoté :

> On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >> Please review the archive.  GFDL is non-free even without invariant
> >> sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
> >
> > This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
> The poll held recently made it very clear. Who has changed their
> position since then?

A poll gives an overview of the feelings of people participating to
the poll. It does not at all prove that something is right or wrong.

Right now I listed 3 problems:
        - invariant section ... an option not necessarily used
        - anti-DMCA clause... maybe unwanted issue (that can be fixed
                by the FSF if the problem is confirmed)
        - transparent clause... complex question. Wouldn't be a
                problem if a GFDLed document is only modifiable in 
                a format that itself requires non-free software?
                People provided examples of practicals problems with 
                the GFDL as it handle the problem right now. 
                But how could be fixed this problem and
                still making sure that the documentation will be
                modifiable without non-free software (just an
The 1st problem will not find a compromise. It expresses a big
difference of consideration of the documentation between GNU and
Debian. Fortunately, this problem does not make the GFDL 'non-free
software according to Debian', but makes the Invariant option 'non-free
software according to Debian'. So it's not something that should put
GFDLed documentation out of main, as long as they do not use that

The 2nd and the 3rd ones could be fixed in a way that satisfy both GNU
and Debian, IMHO.

Is there another big issue I forgot? 

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: