I didn't reply to this yet, but I should've; I thought I had. On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:22:11AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: [WDL] > I'm not yet convinced as to whether it's DFSG-free or not, but if I > had to make a spot decision right now, I'd say not. That's why I requested feedback. As long as (at least) the consensus on this list is *not* that the WDL is DFSG-free, it is not finished. > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > the GPL instead, and try to answer this question: > > What do I want that this license does not already give me? There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want. Wat I /do/ want, however, is a Free Emacs manual in Debian. Amongst others. I've been convinced that this won't happen with the GFDL, and I'm also quite convinced the FSF will not likely drop the GFDL unless an acceptable (to them) alternative is provided. Therefore, I took to crafting an alternative. Whether the alternative will be accepted by the FSF remains to be seen; but there's no harm in trying (other than that I risk wasting a lot of time in a project with no practical results). > Then, *without* attempting to write a license that meets these goals, > just list them. We can probably deal with this more quickly based on > evaluating whether and under what conditions those goals could be > acceptable under the DFSG. That's a possible approach too, of course, but I think it's easier to debate over an actual text than over a hypothetical one. YMMV. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature