Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
> proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
> is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
>
> I propose the Debian project release the following statement on the GFDL:
I agree completely with this statement, and of course if it proceeds
to vote, will vote for it unless something even better comes along
(which I think is unlikely).
However, one thing gives me pause: if this goes to a vote, and the
vote is "no", then what? Some will interpret that as an official
statement by the Project that the GFDL does not violate the DFSG.
Sure, they will be wrong, but that doesn't stop people. :)
Is there another way we can proceed? We have not in the past felt it
necessary to issue official statements like this about non-DFSG
licenses; why the exception in this particular case?
Thomas
Reply to: