On Friday 20 January 2006 00:22, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > My point is that it is about including works licensed under > the GFDL, with no invariant sections, into main -- which is a > different stastement than averring that such works are free, and meet > DFSG requirements. So indeed there was a misunderstanding from the outset. > > Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were > > to modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then > > consider it as not requiring supermajority? > > No necessarily. I would probably consider it a separate issue > from issuing a position statement explaining the projects decision to > drop GFDL licensed works, and I would consider it a move to override > the release team statement about removing GFDL licensed works for the > Etch release. > > > "Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of > > its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation > > License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no > > Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove > > them is granted." > > This does not mean that such works are free, just that we > shall include them in main, will-ye, nil-ye. > > > This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't > > engaging in special pleading, but view the > > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free. > > I do not think that statement parses the way you think it > does. The block I quoted was from the original amendment. I wasn't implying that it stated that the GFDL would be considered DFSG-free, merely that something would need to be added to it, or it would need to be changed, in order to make clear the original intention of the amendment. > >> So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position > >> statement. > > > > Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable > > and DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you > > will, rather than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained > > multiple options with wildly varying intentions and viewpoints > > before. > > The original GR is explaining why the project considers the > licenses non-free, since the delegates have already so decided > (having GFDL licensed works is now deemed non-free). Plenty of GRs have contained diametrically opposed options in the past. The last one contained a virtual smorgasbord of options, from temporarily suspending the preceding GR, to not suspending it, to adding a new foundation document, etc. An earlier GR on non-free had multiple options, some for it, others stating the opposite. So I don't see why we would need to have two GRs on the same basic issue, namely, the position of Debian on the freeness of the GFDL. That would be needlessly distracting and time-consuming. So let's start again. Let's say that someone tried put forward a new amendment in place of the old. This amendment makes clear its intention to assert the position of the Debian Project as viewing the GFDL, minus invariant sections, to be sufficiently free to meet the DFSG and be included in main. Would you accept the amendment? Given all my arguments in previous posts, would you require a supermajority for the amendment to pass? Cheers, Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpcszHuV471x.pgp
Description: PGP signature