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

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



I second the amendment quoted below.

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, 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-----------------------------------

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpdLT7BB0559.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: