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

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
>   So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
>   ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
>   my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.

As per A.1(3) I don't accept this amendment to the original proposal,
so it should be voted on separately, presuming it gets enough sponsors.

> -----------------------------------8<-----------------------------------
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =============================================
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>      conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>      allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>      documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>      "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>      As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>      Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>      we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>      unmodifiable content.
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>      GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>      do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>      Guidelines.
>      This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>      Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>      permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>      the main component of our distribution.
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>      trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>      it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>      means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>      For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>      their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>      same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
>      free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
> ----------------------------------->8-----------------------------------

That said, seconded; I'm not sure at the moment whether I prefer this
over my original proposal or not, but I do think the above's clear and
justifiable, and worthy of the project.

I expect I'll be calling for a vote when this proposal gets sufficient
seconds, unless someone else beats me to it.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: