Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. It would probably be a good idea if you would not try to characterize other people's positions that you don't agree with, since you are mostly just getting them wrong. For example, I agree more with the latter definition than the former, but I think the GFDL is clearly non-free. > 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. You're preaching to the choir here, and I still think that the GFDL is clearly non-free. So that argument probably isn't going to get you where you want to go. > The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian will > go and I hope our secretary will give them this right. I'm sure that the Debian developers are going to get to vote; the only question is over what the required margin will be. My guess is that whatever margin is eventually required, it's not going to matter at all to the results. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
