Re: Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment
[Speaking only for myself, but I do think it reflects the truth fairly
well]
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> These difficulties may be due to English not being my native language,
> to my lack of knowledge of previous events, differences in assumptions
> or various other factors. In any case, here is my understanding, which I
> suspect is flawed:
>
> Anthony's proposal states or infers
>
> * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
> * GFDL material will not be included in main
> * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
> Copies" and "Digital Rights Management"
> * Each problem alone is enough to make GFDL non-DFSG-free
> * FSF could make a new version of the license DFSG-free but hasn't
> done so despite four years of negotiation
Correct.
> Adeodato's amendment states or infers
>
> * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free in some modes of use
> * GFDL material in these modes of use will not be included in main
> * The problems with GFDL are "The DRM Restriction", "Transparent
> and Opaque Copies" and "Invariant Sections"
Correct.
> * Only the "Invariant Sections" problem makes the GFDL
> non-DFSG-free
Almost. Better: Only the "Invariant Sections" problem is a fatal flaw.
> * The other problems make GFDL incompatible with some other
> licenses, but does not make material with no "Invariant
> Sections" non-DFSG-free -- thus Debian continues to include it
> in main
No. The other problems also make the GFDL non-free; however, Adeodato's
proposal labels these problems as bugs in the license (i.e., we presume
that a strict reading of the current wording does not reflect the intent
of those clauses). As such, since it can be assumed that the bugs will
not cause problems for us, we allow them.
> Some explicit questions regarding Anthony's proposal:
>
> Does Debian officially end DFSG negotiations with FSF as a result of
> this GR proposal?
No, that's not the intent. The proposal explicitly mentions that this
statement applies to the current version of the GFDL.
> If not, what role or purpose does this GR proposal have in the context
> of continued negotiations?
It may cause some friction, I presume; however, the feeling that we've
been waiting a very long time now is overwhelming for some people, and
that we can't wait much longer. Also, if we want to release etch in
December, this needs doing now.
[...]
> Is the document
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html an official
> position statement of the Debian project? If so, which GR(s) has (have)
> established this?
No; nobody ever claimed that it was official, and the document itself
denies any resemblance of officiality.
To make it official, a GR would be needed -- which is exactly what this
is all about.
> Finally, a rhetorical question:
>
> If Debian has explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
> non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use, but has not adopted the
> position statement referenced above as its official position statement,
> what is the official position statement of Debian regarding the freeness
> of GFDL?
>
> Answer: that's what this GR is about.
> Is my answer correct?
Yes.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: