On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
>> without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the
>> license is currently written.
> I believe this issue is a matter of interpretation, especially given
> that the DFSG is specifically and explicitly intended to be a set of
> guidelines.
Noted.
> My reading of all the options of this GR so far have the effect of
> stating how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect
> to the GFDL.
I beg to differ. The original proposal was to explain the
stance Debian has already taken, as evidenced by the BTS usertags
gfdl and nonfree-doc, and the release team statement -- and how the
license may be fixed.
If you someone wants to change how Debian interprets the GFDL,
it should be a separate issue -- and quite likely should be done
before. Why is it that no one cared to override the delegates
decision until a statement explaining the decision is being issued?
manoj
--
Dying is one of the few things that can be done as easily lying
down. Woody Allen
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]
