Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose that we: > * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing > section-by-section our problems with the license > * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this > issue > * draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add > riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are > DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses > that are also DFSG-free > Then: > * exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU > FDL[1] > * contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of > each affected source package, and include pointers to the > above documents > * post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce > and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by > whatever later actions occur > * give people some time to consider and act upon the above > contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound > sand, others won't reply at all) > * remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not > been brought into compliance with the DFSG > > This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot > headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to > me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or > our users. Either that we feel the GNU FDL is being used in main and > contrib in ways that are not DFSG-free, or we don't, and either way we > need to get ourselves squarely on the record. > > I am seeking seconds for this proposal.
In as much as I can propose that people do work (e.g. this tasks isn't done). I second the motion that, should this work be done, it would carry the weight of an official Debian position. Peter
pgppaMCB5Q4oI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
