[On 2/27/06, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since the way these choices are proposed to you is misleading, I have > to sent this specifying message to you all.
Without passing judgement, I'll note that a statement like this demands well stated proof. [...eliding background material...] > When you vote, please understand, that the whole point of my proposal > is that GFDL is compatible with the current text of DFSG. That is - > with proper reading of DFSG, GFDL is compatible with our current > guidelines. This seems a formal statement of the issue which needs to be proven. > The third rule of DFSG says: "The license must allow modifications and > derived works". At first sight it seams that "must allow > modifications" means that the license must allow us to make arbitrary > modifications. As a matter of fact this interpretation is impossible > because according to it even GPL would be a non-free license (please > refer to my proposal for an explanation). This looks like an argument that the GFDL does not conflict with section 3 of the DFSG. Without passing judgement, I'll note that this does not address the other sections of the DFSG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's my opinion: First off, I've left out a lot of Anton Zinoviev's post. Frankly, I think a lot of it (including what I see as smear attacks on Manoj Srivastava) is irrelevant. I see a conflict between what Anton has said here and the obvious meaning of the DFSG -- not section 3 taken alone, but taking into account section 4 as well. And since this section 4 convlict has been raised, repeatedly, I think that if anyone was serious about addressing it there would be a page describing the issue -- in concise overview, and in detail -- and I think people would be posting links to that page. I think I would be in favor of a well thought out proposal for improving the DFSG -- one that starts with the goals and issues it attempts to address and works from there. (As I remember it, that's how the DFSG was originally written -- as I remember it, Debian was having problems with software that potentially couldn't be ported and there were also concerns about the need for security fixes and other sorts of maintenance.) But I don't think that we gain anything by trying to pretend the DFSG says anything other than what it says. I don't think that GRs would be useful if we had to change the truth to properly understand them. -- Raul
