On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Bruce Perens wrote: > Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you > to resolve this by yourselves.
I don't see it this way. Both sides are imperfect, but on this issue I feel it's pretty clear that the GFDL is a non-free license. Tempers on the part of debian-legal regulars are no higher than ever, except for a bit of frustration at having to re-debate points of the matter for the tenth time. > As an SPI director and the DPL historicaly responsible for decisions > that both sides are arguing about, I feel that it's time for me to step > in between the two parties. Thank you. If I can do anything to help, including shutting up for awhile, please let me know how you're progressing. > Regarding non-free stuff in Debian and the GFDL, both sides are making > the _same_ mistake: Once again, I disagree. Both sides are making mistakes, but they are different and unrelated mistakes. > Debian, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true > to the Free Software ethos while the non-free file tree is so > close to the rest of the system. I would love to see this change as well. > FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true > to the the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license > that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but > the license text and attribution. This, in my mind, is a more fundamental problem, and not "simply an administrative issue". The FSF has every right to publish non-free work, but Debian should not bend it's rules to include it. > So, here is how I think both sides should start to work together: > There is a fiction in the Debian Social Contract: "non-free isn't > really part of Debian". It's time to make it so. Very good. > FSF, in turn, should assert that documentation is an > essential component of Free Software, and that it must be under > essentially the same terms as the software that it is associated > with. Also very good, but I fail to see how the two are related, or help the two sides "come together". Both are things that should be done, one is something that at least a number of project members has stated a desire for, and the other is something that has so far been categorically dismissed. It would be a bizarre thing to me if RMS were to say "If Debian were to stop distributing non-free, the FSF would agree that documentation needs to be as free as programs and change the GFDL". If he does say that, then I think there'd be a lot of support for re-prioritizing the disposal of non-free. If he doesn't, we should anyway, but it's a seperate thing from whether GFDL-licensed work can go in Debian main. > Now, can we please see some work on this, rather than bickering? We've been working on this for years. The bickering is a result of the work, and is valuable. That said, actual behavior changes (removing non-free work from main, and getting non-free resolved) should move forward. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
