Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:05:08 -0500, Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> said:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>>
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>> two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
> Right. To declare that the amendment would constitute a modification
> of a foundation document is to presuppose the very issue that this
> amendment seeks to clarify, namely, whether or not the
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections is indeed non-free.
I'm sorry, whether or not something meets the requirements of
the DFSG is not entirely a matter of opinion. While I agree there are
grey areas where it can be hard to determine whether or not something
is non-free, it is not my belief that the GFDL falls in that
category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL licenced
works in main one needs to modify the SC itself.
> If the amendment passes, then GFDL-minus-invariant-sections docs
> would not be considered non-free, and so could be allowed in main
> without any special dispensation. The amendment is not intended to
> declare that we should suspend the DFSG for the sake of expediency;
> such a proposal would indeed require a 3:1 supermajority. Rather,
> it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy.
> No GR has declared the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections to be
> non-free. The GRs only decided to extend the DFSG to all of Debian,
> and then to postpone the application of this rule until after
> Sarge. The GFDL (with or without invariant sections) has been
> declared non-free with much controversy only by a very small set of
> developers, largely active on debian-legal, a body with no
> constitutional standing. While the Project finds it expedient to
> respect the general debian-legal consensus on most issues to avoid
> endless GRs on every subject, where there is a strong division of
> opinion within the developer body, or the decision will have
> important consequences, a GR to establish a license's status within
> the framework of the foundation documents seems wholly appropriate.
I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed
works without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open
mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they
indeed do not meet DFSG requirements.
> The Project Secretary would be overstepping his or her authority to
> declare the interpretation of the license being proposed to be
> fundamentally in violation of the foundation documents _prior_ to
> any vote on the subject. He or she may hold a strong personal view
> on the matter, but cannot impose that view on the general shape of
> the vote.
I am, in my position as secretary, interpreting the
constitution, and the foundation documents, as well as the proposals
and vlaoots for the forthcoming GR.
> If the Secretary views the amendment as insufficiently clear as to
> what it is attempting to establish, then he or she can always
> request clarification.
I donot believe the proposal is unclear. I understand what the
intent of the proposal is, and I also believe that no matter how many
people state that something factual is incorrect, that does not make
it so.
manoj
--
Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. Dr. Kasi
Ananthanarayanan
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: