On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free > license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project > splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner consistent with the DFSG. It can also be applied in ways inconsistent with the DFSG. Please see: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/> Discussion of software vs. documentation, the precise meaning of DFSG 3, and the GNU FDL in particular dominated the traffic on debian-legal for two solid months. The reason that there is no consensus was pretty nicely summed up by Mark Rafn: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00336.html> He said: Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their position falls more-or-less into one of the following? 1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free documents in Debian. 2) Documents with some amount of invariant non-license text can still be considered free. 3) Documents with non-license invariant text are non-free, and don't belong in Debian. 4) Generally, we shouldn't include documents with invariant text because they're not free, but we should make occasional exceptions. BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute. I have a personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't be many people moving between the above camps. The present discussion should really be taking place on debian-legal. -- G. Branden Robinson | "Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy?" [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs."
pgp3N88KAy4H4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
