On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple: it > doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people > consider that non-free or not. People who don't consider that non-free > are probably not going to be persuaded by any other, more subtle argument > either
During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among us. The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do whatever we want with it. The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to adapt it to various needs and to improve it. The strong point of the first notion of freedom is that in every person there is a natural desire to be able to do whatever he wants. The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian. I think it is useles to persuade each other which one of these two 'freedoms' is the right one -- each of them has its own rights and its benefits. What I am trying to persuade the people is that the first notion of freedom is unnatural for Debian. It is unnatural because we already accept as free many licenses that do not allow us to do everything we would want. For now the first notion of freedom can be at most an ideal with many exceptions. The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian will go and I hope our secretary will give them this right. Whatever the developers decide, a determined Debian will be better for everyone than the current Debian with no clear policy. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
