Re: Question to all the candidates: please explain GR-2006-001
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:48:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi all,
> IANADD, so I don't have vote right, but I'd like to ask a question
> anyway.
>
> To all candidates who wish to respond:
>
> How did you vote for the GR on the GFDL[1] (GR-2006-001) and why?
According to the tally sheet, this is how I voted:
Option 1----->: GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
/ Option 2---->: GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
|/ Option 3--->: GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
||/ Option 4-->: Further discussion
|||/
V: 2143 wouter Wouter Verhelst
I was initially going to vote 1342 or 1243, since I did (and still do!)
agree with the position that there are some problems in the wording of
the anti-DRM, and some of the other clauses.
However, somewhere during the discussion (which took place on
mailinglists, on IRC, and on planet debian all at once), I became
convinced that these issues, while problematic, were no more than bugs
in the license which the FSF had acknowledged. Also, these problems are
mere technicalities; I do not think anyone will be brought before court
simply because they had ran 'chmod -R go-r /usr/share/doc' on a system,
for example.
Since the FSF had acknowledged them as bugs, and had reportedly stated
that they would update the license to remove these bugs, I did not think
it was appropriate to call the FDL non-free in all cases anymore; but I
could live with it as a compromise.
Since I consider the invariant sections in an FDL document to be
non-free no matter what, I did not consider that option to be
appropriate. Apparently, the majority of Debian agreed with me; this
option had to achieve a 3:1 majority, but failed to make even simple
majority.
--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Reply to: