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 > * 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 am seeking seconds for this proposal. > > [1] I don't restrict this to GNU FDL-licensed documents that have Cover > Texts or Invariant Sections because previous discussions have indicated > that there may be still other problems with the GNU FDL 1.2. I seem to > recall someone raising a fairly persuasive critique of section 4K, for > instance. Thus, if we're going to nail some theses to the church door, > we might as well make sure that they're comprehensive. > > [2] possibly through a mass bug-filing, but I leave this detail to > future determination I strongly support this proposal. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stay away from hurricanes for a while.
