Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-30 Thread Mathieu Roy
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-30 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free software world, sure. But I wonder which part

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-30 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There no contradiction with the Invariant part option: no invariant part can describe a particular function. You can provide an accurate documentation without changing a text written by the original author that explain why he started to write the

Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-29 Thread Mathieu Roy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free software world, sure. But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-29 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free software world, sure. But I wonder which

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

2003-08-29 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted. I have to agree with you here. I'm don't think that the fundamentals of Richard's position on