Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:34:13 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not), I >> would consider GFDLed documentation with the standard GNU project >> cover texts in their _current_ form sufficient for inclusion into >> main as long as no invariant sections are involved. > > This would be enough to get the package removed from main by > the FTP masters: the general resolution that was passed (by a 3:1 > super majority) has moved such decisions out of individual hands; > deciding to include these cover texts would not be a violation of the > social contract.
I presume you mean "would be". I am afraid that the vote was rigged in that respect. There was no option to a) permit cover texts but no invariant sections, b) permit reasonable cover texts, c) leave things to the judgment of the package manager. All that was possible to vote on is a) permit any use of GFDL into main, b) permit no use of GFDL in main, c) permit use of GFDL into main without any front covers, back covers, invariable sections. So there was no option at all that would have catered to the fact that the GFDL _can_ be used to effectively render documentation unusable for free purposes downstream, but generally isn't. A similar thing could be achieved by a copyright notice (which may not be legally removed in most jurisdictions regardless of license choice) that details affected lines spelled out verbatim and the respective contributor for every single change. This would be an excessively silly thing to do, and if it was done with the intent of making it impossible to produce a printed manual with a reasonable use of paper, it would appear reasonable for the respective maintainer to designate such stuff away from Debian main and into unfree. However, concerning the GFDL, the vote was put up in a manner that refuses to discriminate between appropriate use and utter abuse of the GFDL's provisions for cover texts. Given that the Debian community was not even given an option that would have been able to discriminate between license use and license abuse, I find it somewhat distasteful to suggest that the community had preferred the outcome over an option that was not even made available. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
