On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > >Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since > >>it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. > > > > > >Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM. > > Note, I meant bug in wording, not in intention.
How do you know what the FSF's intentions are with respect to the GNU FDL? RMS has been extremely cagey when asked questions directly on this point. The FSF has published a paper explaining why the feel a "free documentation license" is needed, but as far as I know they have never gone on record as to exactly how each requirement of the GNU FDL defends freedom. If you have citations that will clarify these issues, please provide them. -- G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
pgpA0ZprHhzBq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
