Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I do not think that the GR said that Debian should try to guess the
licensor's meaning when determining *distributability*. That seems even
more dangerous. Doing so when interpreting the DFSG simply opens up
Debian's users to liability if they ASSume that a package in main is free.
But doing so when determining distributability opens up Debian to direct,
If that's what the developers meant, they should have said so.
I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, before the GRs; the "hmm, wait,
isn't ftpmaster download access restricted?" moment didn't come into my
head until today.
Choice 1 said explicitely that Debian would continue to ship GFDL in its
non-free section. So that advocators of choice 1 advocate a vote which
would oblige Debian to violate copyright (obviously your "pratical"
problem would remain the same if GFDL would be moved in the non-free
You are in fact showing the absurdity of such litteral reading.
Obviously GFDL simply means that you cannot prevent a user who have
received a copy of a GFDL to exercice his rights.