On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:01 -0400 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL > with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our > distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear > fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative > guidelines that should apply to documentation. > > I don't plan to discuss even small GFDL changes here. I think people > will present a proposal for guidelines for free documentation for > Debian. As has been pointed out before, such a proposal doesn't belong here. The function of -legal is to interpret the DFSG and vet the free-ness of software[1] licenses in accordance with said interpretation. It is *not* its role to decide which parts of Debian the DFSG should adhere to (or not). Such a proposal should be brought up on -project if and when anyone gets around to actually writing it. Of course (IMHO) they'd be wasting their time. Said proposal would have a near-zero chance of passing unless accompanied with a convincing rationale for why a different measure of freedom is necessary, and I sincerely doubt that "We must have invariant sections to make sure that everyone receives a copy of the GNU Manifesto together with the manual"[1] will pass muster in this regard. [1] Ok, so the Freedom of modifiability has been slain on the altar of "getting the word out". Presumably the next iteration of the license will have a clause forcing every recipient of the software to *read* the Manifesto, too?[2] [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will *still* be more widespread, or at least be seen as synonymous with "Free Software" (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software] concatenation shows) presumably some even more drastic concessions will have to be made in the name of increasing mindshare?
