Differences between revisions 12 and 13
Revision 12 as of 2009-01-17 20:26:57
Size: 3205
Editor: FranklinPiat
Comment: fix link
Revision 13 as of 2009-03-16 03:29:41
Size: 3237
Editor: anonymous
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html official page for the FDL]. The [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html|official page for the FDL]].
Line 6: Line 6:
  * Richard Stallman [http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00077.html posts a draft of version 1.0] of the GNU FDL; this began immediate discussion on the terms, and version 1.0 appears not to have been officially published.   * Richard Stallman [[http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00077.html|posts a draft of version 1.0]] of the GNU FDL; this began immediate discussion on the terms, and version 1.0 appears not to have been officially published.
Line 8: Line 8:
  *the FSF publishes [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.1.txt version 1.1 of the GNU FDL].   *the FSF publishes [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.1.txt|version 1.1 of the GNU FDL]].
Line 12: Line 12:
  * ["BrandenRobinson"] conducts a survey of debian-legal: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00605.html Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?], then later [http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2003/08/msg00270.html posts the results].   * [[BrandenRobinson]] conducts a survey of debian-legal: [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00605.html|Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?]], then later [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2003/08/msg00270.html|posts the results]].
Line 14: Line 14:
  * ["NathanaelNerode"] [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg01115.html proposes a change] to the Debian website, pointing to his brief [http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL] article.   * [[NathanaelNerode]] [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg01115.html|proposes a change]] to the Debian website, pointing to his brief [[http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html|Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL]] article.
Line 16: Line 16:
  * ["ManojSrivastava"] [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00703.html publishes] a draft [http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml Debian position statement on the FDL].   * [[ManojSrivastava]] [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00703.html|publishes]] a draft [[http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml|Debian position statement on the FDL]].
Line 18: Line 18:
  * [http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 Debian GR 2006-01] Option 2 passes: "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free".   * [[http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001|Debian GR 2006-01]] Option 2 passes: "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free".
Line 20: Line 20:
  * the FSF [http://www.fsf.org/news/gfdl-dd1.html publishes the first discussion draft for version 2 of the GNU FDL].   * the FSF [[http://www.fsf.org/news/gfdl-dd1.html|publishes the first discussion draft for version 2 of the GNU FDL]].
Line 25: Line 25:
  * debian-legal: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00693.html A possible GFDL compromise]
   * One of the more persistent arguments revolves around the difference between the FSF's position that users do not deserve the same freedoms in both programs and documentation, and the Debian position that all software (whether programs, documentation, audio, video, or any other) must meet the DFSG to be in Debian. This [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00545.html long sub-thread on the definition of "software"] started by ["MathieuRoy"] exemplifies the resulting conflicts and confusions.
  * debian-legal: [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00693.html|A possible GFDL compromise]]
   * One of the more persistent arguments revolves around the difference between the FSF's position that users do not deserve the same freedoms in both programs and documentation, and the Debian position that all software (whether programs, documentation, audio, video, or any other) must meet the DFSG to be in Debian. This [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00545.html|long sub-thread on the definition of "software"]] started by [[MathieuRoy]] exemplifies the resulting conflicts and confusions.
Line 28: Line 28:
  * debian-legal: ["NathanaelNerode"] identifies a [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01203.html key point on which the Debian and FSF positions disagree] with regard to freedom.   * debian-legal: [[NathanaelNerode]] identifies a [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01203.html|key point on which the Debian and FSF positions disagree]] with regard to freedom.
Line 30: Line 30:
  * RMS makes explicit that [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01220.html he believes users deserve different freedoms depending on the interpretation of the bitstream].   * RMS makes explicit that [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01220.html|he believes users deserve different freedoms depending on the interpretation of the bitstream]].
Line 32: Line 32:
  * RMS states that [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html he doesn't believe it matters whether the FDL is a free software license].   * RMS states that [[http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html|he doesn't believe it matters whether the FDL is a free software license]].

This is a loose timeline of the history of the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) issue within Debian. It's meant to be a "one-stop shop" for people who want to know more.

The official page for the FDL.

Mailing list discussion: