Important citations: * Motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue (by Branden Robinson) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00189.html
(Note that the following discussion contains lots of agreement and no serious opposition.) * Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL (by Anthony Towns) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html (Note that the followup consists entirely of details. There is no real disagreement by this point.) * The FSF is not changing their position. (For the umpteenth time.) Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00240.html (& following.) It's obviously important to have an official FAQ on the issue available, and I'm sure it will be soon. But as someone who likes Debian to remain 100% free software, I think the consensus on debian-legal is really more than sufficient to require the movement of GFDL-with-invariant-sections material into non-free. Especially considering that the FSF appears unwilling to budge. Also especially considering it may take a while to actually do. :-( At the moment GCC is the only package with invariant-section material which I use, which is why I specifically filed bugs against it. I don't want this to *prevent* new versions of GCC from propagating into testing; the bug can be marked 'woody,sarge,sid' since it's currently everywhere. More citations: --- These aren't necessarily the best or clearest statements of these individuals' opinions; I just ran through until I got a statement from as many of the people who discussed it as possible. Some of them (Thomas Bushnell, Branden Robinson, etc.) expressed their full opinions so long ago I could only find followups. There are more people than listed here. * It's non-free. James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00176.html * Non-free. Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00257.html * Non-free. Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00143.html * Non-free. Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html * Non-free. Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00058.html * Non-free. Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00043.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00106.html * Non-free Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00108.html * Non-free. Joe Wrechnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00076.html * Non-free. Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00055.html * Non-free. Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00052.html * Non-free. Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00057.html * Non-free. Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00067.html * Non-free. Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00034.html * Non-free. Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00030.html * Non-free. Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00273.html * Non-free. MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00352.html * Non-free. Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00260.html
