On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:20:32 -0500, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR that >> states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections do >> not fall afoul of the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic >> than stating we may include GFDL licensed works without invariant >> sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed >> free. > It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was > attempting to do > - to establish a position statement stating that > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free > (and therefore acceptable in main). Is your point that the amendment > wasn't sufficiently explicit? My point is that it is about including works licensed under the GFDL, with no invariant sections, into main -- which is a different stastement than averring that such works are free, and meet DFSG requirements. > Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were > to modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then > consider it as not requiring supermajority? No necessarily. I would probably consider it a separate issue from issuing a position statement explaining the projects decision to drop GFDL licensed works, and I would consider it a move to override the release team statement about removing GFDL licensed works for the Etch release. > "Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of > its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation > License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no > Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove > them is granted." This does not mean that such works are free, just that we shall include them in main, will-ye, nil-ye. > This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't > engaging in special pleading, but view the > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free. I do not think that statement parses the way you think it does. >> So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position >> statement. > Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable > and DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you > will, rather than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained > multiple options with wildly varying intentions and viewpoints > before. The original GR is explaining why the project considers the licenses non-free, since the delegates have already so decided (having GFDL licensed works is now deemed non-free). Overriding that decision is a different kettle of fish. manoj -- "Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." Karl Lehenbauer Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]