Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>
> The Project essentially told us our conclusion â?? the GFDL is not free â??
> is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections. The Project
> did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this:
>
> 1. The Project intends this to be a one-time thing, applying only to
> the GFDL: No effect on future judgements of licenses is intended.
> I don't believe this is a valid interpretation of the GR as that'd
> require a 3:1 supermajority to achieve (just like Amendment B),
> and the ballot option did not require that.
I don't see why this is such a bad view of it. I've never thought the
DFSG-busting anti-DRM was clear-cut: it's mostly suspicion because RMS
refused to explain it. Justifiable suspicion, but suspicion even so.
But, I don't agree with this view as a generalisation, as it suggests
that the DFSG somehow changed.
> 2. The Project intends us to change how we interpret licences as they
> believe we have come to an incorrect conclusion. I believe this is
> the correct way to understand and act on the GR.
No, I think that would be making a bad situation far worse. The PS says
nothing about other licences or interpretation of the DFSG. I think it's
more giving FSF the "benefit of the doubt" on the non-invariant problems
in FDL. I don't think that's prudent, but maybe I'm in a minority.
> 3. Completely ignore the GR, decide the Project has gone mad. I think
> this would be a horrible approach.
No, it's hard to ignore this one.
4. The Project's position is what the PS says: that invariant-less-FDL'd
works meet the requirements of the DFSG and so could go in main (until
or unless further data is available), but "is still not free of trouble,
even for works with no invariant sections". So, it remains for ftpmasters
and RMs to decide how they handle FDL'd works - especially given the
practical problem of N-year Transparent Copy storage, which is not
mentioned in the PS at all.
While I think the PS is confusing and unhelpful, it's not totally nuts.
> If we go with (2), we need to figure out where we (according to the
> Project) have erred in our judgement, interpretation, etc. I believe we
> should:
> 1. Find new ways to interpret the GFDL and (if necissary) the DFSG to
> bring the GFDL w/o invariant sections into compliance with the
> DFSG. Note that I *strongly* prefer that we change our
> interpretation of the GFDL as opposed to give up freedoms in the
> DFSG. [...]
I think "retroactive continuity" of debian-legal is a very bad idea and
I strongly advise you against it. http://foldoc.org/?retcon
We've stated our views, but the Project as a whole disagrees with some
of them. So be it. The Project did not ask for Further Discussion of
this issue at this time. I think they should have, rather than leave a
3:2 split on opposing views, but they did not.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: