In order to just remove it, technically speaking they needed
permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR,
That's the same as the situation for any change between licenses. For
instance, if Apache wanted to relicense under the GPL, they would need
permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This problem is unfortunate, but no worse in the case of two ways of
using the GFDL than with a pair of two different free software
licenses.
But no pair of licenses is claiming to create a shared commons.
Heretofore, the FSF has been claiming to
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
be modified.
This is an argument for
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This isn't inconsistent--consistency does not make sense here. We all
accept various inconveniences to achieve our ends, while rejecting
others as not worth while. And each decision depends on the magnitude
of the costs and benefits. To choose the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the issue here is the question of how Debian should decide
interpret its standards--whether they should be interpreted so
strictly as to reject the GFDL, and also the GPL if it hadn't been
grandfathered.
Let me point out that just as Debian
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason I have said that a few times is that I have seen various
messages here that don't seem to recognize that what the GFDL says is
not a Debian decision. You can suggest changes but cannot demand
changes. I'm not likely to accept suggestions
6 matches
Mail list logo
