On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote: > I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that > "GFDL is non-free" is a "delegate's decision", I don't think it makes > any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of > why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's > intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release > policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit > policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need > to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month. Having a GR that explicitly says "GNU FDL is free/non-free/free in certain configurations" will make it easier to make a statement that a large portion of the project can agree with and support. The question of whether GNU FDL is DFSG-free is one that concerns the Debian community (including its users and other non-DD affiliates) only. This is "our problem". The complicated and problematic nature of the GNU FDL, however, concerns a larger group. It includes the FSF, upstream documentation authors, non-Debian users that come in contact with GNU FDL material, and so on. A public statement should appeal to this entire group, should detail the problems with the GNU FDL, should invite others to discuss these problems and seek to remedy them, and should offer advice to people considering the use of this license until the problems are remedied. The GR proposal that you have submitted does these things. But it should not be mixed with our own decision about including or not including GNU FDL material in our distribution. This is regardless of the outcome of such a GR. Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part