This is the point that helix touched upon that most concerns me: I acknowledgte that the GFDL and the CC with the forced -by clause are non-free, but I also think those two projects have too much people-momentum and mindshare to just give them the shoulder with the "non-free for you!" treatment.
I would like to see an approach towards FSF so casting, identifying (and promoting by Debian as our choice) particular combination of GFDL terms that is DFSG-compliant, and the same with a CC flavor. We could call them Debian-approved-GFDL and Debian-approved-CC (but maybe not to their faces).
(I realise this is something that people might be working on already, but this seems the thread where self-opinionated n00bs can get to field-test their intuitions)
One contrary opinion is that all that is not hardware is software, so there is ( difference between types of software, and documentation and images should be treated just as code is, I will call this point of view "GPL or MIT licenses should suffice".
I know these people have thought about the subject long and hard, but my take is: if some people *do* make the distinction in their own work, why can't Debian accomodate that ontological philosophy as long as it fits within the spirit of the DFSG?
Maybe the solution would be a Debian Free [Documentation|Media] Guidelines, but I admit to being equally ignorant of the details about the current situation and stumped about how to fix it.
-- javier Erinn Clark wrote:
Uh, I knew I should've done more research before sending this. Let this be a lesson to you all -- do not send long scary emails when suffering from insomnia. Some things I should clear up: * The GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License * The DFSG is the Debian Free Software Guidelines * The GFDL stuff *wasn't* a GR and isn't that controversial, but I want input anyway * I probably over-summarized or got some other stuff wrong, but...