On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote: > > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified. > > > > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the > > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful > > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and > > how that springs from the DFSG. > > > > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the > > process of justification that we have gone through. > > If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of, > it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these > carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole.
Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft
position statement on the GNU FDL[2].
If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as
a whole", I'd appreciate it.
Given that Raul himself, after a thread that went several directions, said
"I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it currently stands
should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about that."[3], we seem to
be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the
DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help.
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00030.html
[2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00235.html
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
