On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> said: > > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body > >> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general > >> resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works > >> without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the > >> license is currently written. > > My reading of all the options of this GR so far have the effect of > > stating how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect > > to the GFDL. > I beg to differ. The original proposal was to explain the > stance Debian has already taken, as evidenced by the BTS usertags > gfdl and nonfree-doc, and the release team statement -- and how the > license may be fixed. Well, I believe that the original proposal was to *determine* the stance Debian should take. Anyway, you asked, as Project Secretary, for arguments and guidance from developers, so I provied my input. > If you someone wants to change how Debian interprets the GFDL, > it should be a separate issue -- and quite likely should be done > before. Why is it that no one cared to override the delegates > decision until a statement explaining the decision is being issued? Well, this last paragraph makes it sound to me like you've already made up your mind. If you are actually interested in why I personally didn't publicly make a big deal about the delegates decision, I'd be happy to discuss it some other time, but I don't think my action or inaction actually relevent to this GR. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpbqQlTyhW1f.pgp
Description: PGP signature