[Anton Zinoviev] > If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian > attempted to impose on the free software community alternative > meaning of "free software", effectively violating its Social Contract > with the free software community. That does not follow at all. If the GNOME Foundation chooses to license documents as GFDL, it does not mean they believe it is a free software license. It can just as easily signify that they do not believe documentation should be free software. As for "violating its Social Contract", that's just rhetoric. The Contract assumes that our users are entitled to free software; if certain users who write documentation for other projects decide that they don't care about free software, that's beside the point. > You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG > WITH each Opaque copy Yeah, "along with" means "with". > or state IN OR WITH each Opaque copy a computer-network location > from which the general network-using public has access to download > using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent > copy of the Document, free of added material. So "free of added material" means that if you want to offer CD images for download, you can't just offer source CD images, or even Debian source packages - you have to offer individual documents in source form. For at least a year after you take down the binary CD images from your site. People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it? This is about more than DFSG compliance. A lot of things can be DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if Debian were to ship them. > It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, and > testified by the common practice, that as long as you make the source > and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and > take what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up > to the user whether to download the transparent form. I thought that was what RMS said about the *GPL*. Did he also say that about the GFDL? When and where? Also, what RMS says about the GFDL matters very little when distributing material not copyrighted by him or the FSF. What matters then is the interpretation by the author of the material. This is why it's important to read what a license says, not just what someone says a license is supposed to mean.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature