> Could you elaborate on what action you're suggesting? The biggest issue I see are the "invariant" sections, which according to RMS was "...to make sure that distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software could not remove the statements of our philosophy, which they might think of doing because those statements criticize their actions."
At the time, that may have made more sense. Individuals received more software via disk, and internet access was not as accessible. What I would do (IANAL): * License it under CC-Attribution-ShareAlike * As Attribution#1, link to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html * As Attribution#2, put down a link too emacs authors, website, etc This gives the extra benefit that the philosophy statements are always up-to-date. In addition, the FSF could alert users who come from distributions that have freedom issues about what they are specifically (by user agent or installed plugins). Thanks, Bryan _______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
