Differences between revisions 8 and 13 (spanning 5 versions)
Revision 8 as of 2007-08-07 09:26:52
Size: 2227
Editor: BenFinney
Comment: key point of disagreement
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 11: Line 11:
 * 2003
  * ["NathanaelNerode"] publishes a brief [http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL] article.
 * 2003-08-21 .. 2003-08-28
  * [[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]].
 * 2003-08-28
  * [[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 14: Line 16:
  * ["Manoj Srivastava"] [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 16: 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 18: 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 23: 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 26: 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.
 * 2003-09-24
  * 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]].
    {{{I don't believe that political essays ought to be free in the same sense as documentation or [programs], for instance.}}}
  * 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]].
    {{{I am not sure if the GFDL is a free software license, but I don't think the question matters.}}}

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: