On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I propose that we: > * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing > section-by-section our problems with the license
(Branden, didn't you construct such a critique a while ago? I remember reading one.) > * 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 I second this proposal, with the addition that I wouldn't be opposed to passing a General Resolution at some point before any removals. > 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. Indeed. In fact, I now have the impression that the FSF was waiting for us to come up with an official statement, while we were waiting for a response from the FSF. The first three steps of your proposal seem to be a good way to resolve that. I think it's also time to get the rest of the project involved. I expect that a lot of people who don't ordinarily care about license details will suddenly become interested when packages like glibc-doc are affected. This probably means all of the issues will be rehashed on debian-devel, so it will be good to have such a FAQ available. (I'm not advocating this rehashing, I'm just speaking from past experience :) Richard Braakman
