On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR > that states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections > do not fall afoul of the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic > than stating we may include GFDL licensed works without invariant > sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed > free. It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to do - to establish a position statement stating that GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free (and therefore acceptable in main). Is your point that the amendment wasn't sufficiently explicit? Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were to modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then consider it as not requiring supermajority? "Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove them is granted." This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't engaging in special pleading, but view the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free. > So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position statement. Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable and DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you will, rather than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained multiple options with wildly varying intentions and viewpoints before. Cheers, Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpBMVrjN_Vj6.pgp
Description: PGP signature