Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> 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?
Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is*
DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more
discussion is clearly not a vote for that position.
However, what's kept me from seconding such a proposal for exactly this
reason is that I keep seeing problems with how to phrase it, since just
saying "it's DFSG-free" without addressing the contradictions between it
and the DFSG isn't really a solution and results in a very unclear
interpretation.
I wonder if such a statement would essentially have to be a modification
of the DFSG to add a special case for the GFDL.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: