Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
> two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
> such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
> ™. Pragmatically, it does not make sense to remove documentation that
> only has these issues, only to turn around and move them back in.
I don't see any support for that interpretation in the text of the GR.
It simply states 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.
If it were simply that we expect the issues to be resolved I would
expect to find (a) a sunset clause (e.g., in a year we'll revisit the
issue) and (b) a delineation of the problems we expect to see fixed.
> The GR sounds more like a sore loser GR.
I can't speak for the OP, but I do think there's significant ambiguity
in the text of the GR.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03