On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 +0000 Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >RMS has done more for free software than you have, and hethinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why doI don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered works are free software. Has he expressed an opinion on that, or are you using telepathic devices?
you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's?I don't think I ever claimed he did. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like me to have said.
Rereading, the cause may that you didn't actually write the end of the sentence. Free enough for what? I assumed Debian, but it seems I was wrong.
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...] ] rejecting software ] licenses that we consider free
This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of some where debian-legal has no consensus.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
