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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.
> It is not. See below.

Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has
missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years.
Given the quantity of discussions around the GFDL topics, it's not too
surprising that people would miss parts, but as the topic has been done
to death, I suggest merely referring people to those conversations.

Mostly found googling for 'site:lists.debian.org debian-legal "license
texts" unmodifiable' and variants:

2001: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00009.html at [1]
2002: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/12/msg00067.html
2003; http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00033.html
2004: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00370.html
2005: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg00625.html ("removal or

This is just more wedging, trying to abuse the fact that Debian allows
invariant license texts to squeeze in other invariant stuff.

I would suggest anyone engaging in such wedging carefully reevaluate
whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
"agreement" with the FSF.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: