OK, I'd love to go with the interpreting the recent GR to mean "as a
special exception, the GFDL is free." However, I'm not sure how I can
possibly interpret the GR and the Debian Constitution to make that
reading tenable:
First, the GR very clearly states,
"... we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free
Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully
meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines."
(Amendment A, Clause 2). Note that invariant sections here means
Invariant Sections (as defined in the GFDL), Cover Texts,
Acknowledgments and Dedications.
I do not see how one can maintain a strait face while arguing that
"[works under the GFDL w/o unmodifiable sections] do fully meet the
requirements of the [DFSG]" is intended to create a special exception.
Second, the Social Contract is very clear that "Debian will remain 100%
free" according to the DFSG. The Debian Constitution requires a
supermajority to change foundation documents and both the Social
Contract and DFSG are foundation documents. A GR requiring simple
majority can not decree that from now on, "Debian will remain 90% free."
Third, the GR begins,
"This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:"
and I think that fairly clearly means the GR is an exercise of the power
granted to developers under §4.1.5 of the Debian Constitution to "issue,
supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements," in
particular "... nontechnical policies such as the free software license
terms that Debian software must meet." That'd leave us with the Project
having just decided to issue a nontechnical policy on how to interpret
the DFSG.
I would love to be wrong on this — could someone please explain to me
how I am? *Please*, *pretty*please*, I want to be wrong.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
