Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> >> I assert that their arguments are not part of the position statement >> (= not part of what was approved by vote) and that trying to interpret >> hidden meanings of the position statement is daft. > > As far as I can see our choices are: (1) Ignoring the GR, which would > mean that our advice would not say anything about how the Debian > Project feels about licences. (2) Accepting the GR as a statement > about the literal meaning of the GFDL, which is simply untrue. (3) > Trying to find some way of understanding the GR that is neither false > nor self-contradictory. > > If you have a fourth option that I have overlooked, I would love to > hear about it. (4) Not interpreting the GR to specify any particular interpretation of either the GFDL or the DFSG, and simply taking it at face value as a statement that the GFDL should be considered DFSG-free without affecting the interpretation of any other license. This position is not self-contradictory. We don't get to "interpret" the GFDL. It isn't a set of guidelines; it's a license, and what it literally says is what it means. However, this doesn't mean that the GR said the particular clauses in the GFDL are free; the GR just *defined* the GFDL *as a whole* to be free. It would thus not contradict the GR at all if we continued to interpret any identical clause in another license as non-free. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature