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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature