Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:35:29 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > It can't be proved because it's not true, which is another reason > > that amendment shouldn't win. Others use those options, such as > > http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/about-lic= > ense.html > > Thanks for these links, I wasn't aware of their existence. I consider > this one as an abuse of the GFDL -- the invariant sections should > contain information that the author considers *important*. In this > case the author thinks that he's very important, so I won't use his > manual.
The relationship of the author to the topic is named in the FDL as one of the suitable topics for a Secondary section, so I don't see how it's abusing the FDL. He thinks describing himself is important. FSF thinks the GNU Manifesto is important. So be it. I hope you now agree that Anton Zinoviev's amendment was supported by some false claims, even if you still think it should have won. > A more serious flaw is the title "Secure programming for Linux". > Obviously he thinks that Linux is an operating system, which > is a delusion. I consider it a common mistake more than a delusion, but amen. > [...] Fortunately only a few > people (the DDs that voted for it) have such perverted logic. If you > think that the GNU Manifesto is adware, I can only say that there is a > huge precipice between us. I don't think the GNU Manifesto is adware. I think putting an unmodifiable GNU Manifesto into a manual debases the manifesto by making it a cheap advert and makes the manual adware. > If you think that you can impose your (the project's) view > to other distributions to make that decision more legitimate, > it's not going to happen. I don't think that. All I do is explain my view, trying to find peace and not leave misleading statements about debian. > You have no idea how > ridiculous it looks -- a priest teaching us about the foundations of > Christianity while at the same time committing serial murders (yes, > for a Free Software activist, I consider distributing non-free > software the same as drug dealing or a crime of similar magnitude). Interesting analogy. Apart from the murders, some FSF fans seem to think FSF is Pope Leo X, with nothing to learn about their subject: the debian project "when sober will change his mind". If that continues, I think this difference of approaches is about as likely to resolve as the main Christian church split. Always sad IMO to liken free software to religion, though. > I'll still continue to licence my manuals under GNU FDL, a free > licence, acknowledged as free by the majority of the Free Community. When did the majority acknowledge FDL as free? -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
