On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1: > > "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant > > to freeness". A GR that calls a work Free is not orthogonal to > > distributability; it's intrinsically tied to it. > > The issues aren't orthogonal, but the decisions are. One decision > (the GR) is made by debian developers. The other is made by the > courts. The courts don't care about the GR if they have to decide on > whether a GFDL work is distributable via debian infrastructure. > > Consequently, there's no reason to take the GR into account when > deciding whether GFDL works are distributable. It's irrelevant to that > discussion.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your logic; this reads like a set of unrelated statements. (Not meaning to flame or anything, I just don't follow.) The determination of distributability and of freedom are directly tied: a work which can't be distributed reasonably violates DFSG#1 at its most basic level. I don't know how you can call distributability and freedom orthogonal decisions. > What's more, your opinion (or mine) on whether the GFDL is distributable > given debian infrastructure is also irrelevant, because it carries no > weight. The GR isn't going to get changed because you or I believe GFDL > works aren't distributable -- not unless we can convince enough other > people of that to get another GR passed. This is like a GR that says: "the GPL permits combining code with proprietary systems, and Debian will do so and encourage its users to do so". It's patently false, and is merely a declaration of intent to violate the license. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]