On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this > license would require significant additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. >
Note: I do not believe that documentation should be subject to the same specific guidelines for determining freeness as is programs, and I do not believe the reading of the social contract which implies that Debian cannot contain items which are not software at all. However I do believe, that the GFDL version 1.3 as written contain clauses which are likely to also fail any more relevant DFSG-like guidelines for determining if it is free. Specifically these are the various restrictions on the techni- calities of modifying and copying the work. These restrictions mean that many acts that can reasonably be expected to be permitted for free works are suddenly banned because of technicalities. > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works > under this license would require no additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain > restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the > copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under > this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case > basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered > Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. > > Part 2. Status of Respondent > > Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true. > > [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian > Constitution as of the date on this survey. > -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
