Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 20:30 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes:
> > 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?
> No. I understood the amendment exactly as Manoj has characterized it:
> it was an amendment to permit the GFDL in, whether or not it is
> DFSG-free.
Just to make it clear:
"We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in a variety
of ways, explained in detail in the Problems of the GFDL section below."
And later, on "Problems of the GFDL"
"The DRM Restriction [...] Transparent And Opaque Copies [...] Invariant
Sections"
So, the amendment do recognize the other problems, but still...
"We believe that works licensed under the GFDL that include no such
unmodifiable sections do fully meet the spirit of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines, and have a place in our distribution despite the
other problems (minor, in comparison) that the GFDL has."
It's something like, "Hey GFDL has problems, but it has the *spirit*, so
the other problems doesn't matter"... Unfortunally, spirit doesn't
changes the license...
And also:
"Despite the compromise above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
trouble: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software
licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free
programs."
So... If the intention was to refute the interpretation of the GFDL
license that thinks the other problems do exist? Shouldn't it be forced
to say that the problems doesn't exist? If the amendment recognizes that
the other problems exists but still wants to includes it in main, so it
changes the DFSG.
daniel
Reply to: