Seconded.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, 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-----------------------------------
>
> --
> Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
> Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
>
> Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona!
> -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas»
--
1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com>
92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801
CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested.
There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or
food. They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up
again. And call the helldesk about their password expiring.
-- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki the Raccoon-dog, in ASR:
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature