On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether > > > something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either. > > > It's something that can be sacrificed, to a certain degree: the GPL is > > > pretty inconvenient at times, but its effects are acceptable. > > > > Yes, and so it will be with the GFDL. > > So what will be? The GFDL prohibits modification of a part of a work, and > "freedom to modify" is not something that can be sacrificed.
I'm not participating in this thread in order to argue details, just trying to stop people from being stupid. > > What really matter is whether > > _creators_ of free documentation decide that the GFDL is suitable for their > > works. This is what will make or break the GFDL, not whether Debian decides > > to distribute works licensed under it. > > A license is free if people making free works use the license? Stack > overflow ... The license's success (not its freedom) will depend on whether or not free content creators deem it acceptable and are willing to live with its current and future deficiencies. If these creators are not happy with GFDL, it will not be used, regardless of how heavily the FSF promotes it. If they like it, then it will be used, regardless of how heavily Debian fights it. We need to present convincing arguments that expose real-world, practical issues with GFDL. Not waste our time coming up with bullshit like "freedom is convenience". --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
