On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:42:11PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > > I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license > > evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between > > > > - pure FDL (which is obviously free) > > - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) > > It looks about 2 out of 3 of people who answered this survey disagree > with your vision of pure FDL, so I'm afraid the "obviously" term should > be removed from your analysis.
Eduard is well-known for disregarding the opinions of others.
For instance, he has been known to accuse Debian Developers of violating
clause 4 of the Debian Social Contract ("Our Priorities are Our Users
and Free Software") if they don't act on a bug report he has filed fast
enough to suit him.
I would, therefore, not expect him to take your advice.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Never attribute to malice that
Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | by stupidity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Hanlon's Razor
pgpMfoszL7sQW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
