On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:04 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> As I understood it, Adeodato's and Fabian's proposals were there to
> allow in main certain pieces of documentation (e.g GNOME's and KDE's)
> which don't have Invariant Sections, and cannot otherwise be
> relicensed (due to the death of some copyright holders).
>
> What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
> won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
> proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
Some people want to have one big GR with all the options on it.
Other people (like me) think it's better to have two separate GRs:
* one to decide if GNU FDL is free or not and
* one to decide how we should explain our decision.
Adeodato's amendment was for the "one big GR" setup.
My proposal was for the "two separate GRs" setup.
If there is not enough support for the "two separate GRs" setup, then I
will consider modifying my proposal to fit into the "one big GR" setup.
But I first want to see if there is any support.
See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00280.html
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part