Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, one thing gives me pause: if this goes to a vote, and the vote > is "no", then what? Some will interpret that as an official statement > by the Project that the GFDL does not violate the DFSG. Sure, they will > be wrong, but that doesn't stop people. :)
> Is there another way we can proceed? We have not in the past felt it > necessary to issue official statements like this about non-DFSG > licenses; why the exception in this particular case? Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is* DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more discussion is clearly not a vote for that position. However, what's kept me from seconding such a proposal for exactly this reason is that I keep seeing problems with how to phrase it, since just saying "it's DFSG-free" without addressing the contradictions between it and the DFSG isn't really a solution and results in a very unclear interpretation. I wonder if such a statement would essentially have to be a modification of the DFSG to add a special case for the GFDL. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
