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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:01 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
>     with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
>     distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
>     fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative
>     guidelines that should apply to documentation.
> I don't plan to discuss even small GFDL changes here.  I think people
> will present a proposal for guidelines for free documentation for
> Debian.

As has been pointed out before, such a proposal doesn't belong here. The
function of -legal is to interpret the DFSG and vet the free-ness of
software[1] licenses in accordance with said interpretation. It is *not*
its role to decide which parts of Debian the DFSG should adhere to (or
not). Such a proposal should be brought up on -project if and when
anyone gets around to actually writing it.

Of course (IMHO) they'd be wasting their time. Said proposal would have
a near-zero chance of passing unless accompanied with a convincing
rationale for why a different measure of freedom is necessary, and I
sincerely doubt that "We must have invariant sections to make sure that
everyone receives a copy of the GNU Manifesto together with the
manual"[1] will pass muster in this regard.

[1] Ok, so the Freedom of modifiability has been slain on the altar of
"getting the word out". Presumably the next iteration of the license
will have a clause forcing every recipient of the software to *read* the
Manifesto, too?[2]

[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
*still* be more widespread, or at least be seen as synonymous with "Free
Software" (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software]
concatenation shows) presumably some even more drastic concessions will
have to be made in the name of increasing mindshare?

Reply to: