Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple:
>> it doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
>> consider that non-free or not. People who don't consider that non-free
>> are probably not going to be persuaded by any other, more subtle
>> argument either
> During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among us.
> The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do
> whatever we want with it.
> The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
It would probably be a good idea if you would not try to characterize
other people's positions that you don't agree with, since you are mostly
just getting them wrong. For example, I agree more with the latter
definition than the former, but I think the GFDL is clearly non-free.
> I think it is useles to persuade each other which one of these two
> 'freedoms' is the right one -- each of them has its own rights and its
> benefits. What I am trying to persuade the people is that the first
> notion of freedom is unnatural for Debian.
You're preaching to the choir here, and I still think that the GFDL is
clearly non-free. So that argument probably isn't going to get you where
you want to go.
> The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian will
> go and I hope our secretary will give them this right.
I'm sure that the Debian developers are going to get to vote; the only
question is over what the required margin will be. My guess is that
whatever margin is eventually required, it's not going to matter at all to
the results.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: