Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the GFDL itself? (If I was a DD I would vote for Option 2 myself, and I think that it is acceptable to have a requirement that the license itself be included and not modified.)
Andrew On 3/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > >The winners are: > > Option 2 "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free" > > > Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority; > chaos is preserved for another day.[0] > > However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been > overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our > future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the > DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough, point-by-point > rebuttal of the position statement was given on -vote or -legal (to the > best of my knowledge; I'd love to be wrong). > > I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each > problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make > things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license, > stop nit-picking so much." > > So, without further ado, my attempt at this: > > _1. The "DRM" Restriction._ > > "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has been > mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider "you > must make all your files a+r, etc." a free license. I propose that the > Project is telling us that something along the following is the true > reading: > > "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the > reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the > copies you make or distribute [to him]" > > This re-wording seems to clear up the three problems identified in [2]. > > > _2. Transparent and Opaque copies_ > > This must be another mis-reading. Just as when you put a CD-ROM inside > the box with a book you are "includ[ing] a machine-readable Transparent > copy", so are you when you put the transparent copy alongside the opaque > copy on an FTP server. (This even seems somewhat acceptable as an > interpretation, considering the FSF's stated views in the GPL FAQ) > > > 3. Invariant Sections > > Here, the Project agrees with us. > > > > And then, [2] covers the more-detailed problems with the GFDL. I think > that makes a subject for another message... > > > _FOOTNOTES_ > > 0. Foundation documents are best not amended via hand waving but > rather via clear changes; I have no idea how we'd continue to vet > licenses had the hand-waving passed. > 1. Not technically, but practically: -legal can't be overridden by GR > since it can't actually make decisions. > 2. http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net