I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> 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.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----------------------------------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-----------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpj4YO862CR_.pgp
Description: PGP signature