On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:26:12 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
> Why should it be a separate GR? That's seems both unnecessary and a
> bad idea; what's the point in overriding decisions about the GFDL,
> if it is then declared non-free anyway?
Well, here is one view of how things stand.
Issue 1
=======
Q1) Are GFDL licensed works non-free?
Ans: With invariant texts, there does not seem to be any question
Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines.
The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that
the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders
about absence of invariant clauses.
Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions
of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this
impacts issue 2.
So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn
something seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
So, if the GFDL is non-free, as a matter of fact, not of
opinion, then there is no room for the GR disputing that. If it is a
matter of opinion, then by a GR, the developers should be able to
overrule the opinions of the delegates.
I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
fact.
Issue 2
=======
Given that the delegates have decided that GFDL licensed works
are not fit for Etch, we are seeking to issue a position statement
explaining our stance, and what would be needed to change the
license.
Now, if the first issue is resolved, then the position
statement would need to be adapted to the resolution of question 1.1
above (currently, I hold that Answer 1.1 is "non-free" -- and hence
the amendment needs a 3:1 super majority and would need us to change
the SC). If the developers, via a GR, reverse that stance, then the
position statement can include wording to the effect that works
licensed under the GFDL can be included in main if they have no
invariant sections.
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.
manoj
--
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." Jean
Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
pgprmID6Vln71.pgp
Description: PGP signature
