Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
I already asked the question
here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a
GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 %
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:13:41AM -0700,
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
There are more problems with the GFDL than just the invariant
sections. Invariant sections are just the worst problem. Since RMS
seems unwilling to change anything, I'd say
On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
I already asked the question
here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a
GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 %
free.
It was a while ago until people noticed the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Documentation that can only be instantiated in a non-Free Document
is not Free.
You are in a maze of twisty frees, all different.
On 2 June 2003 RMS wrote:
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated. [...]
It
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documents with invariant sections will go in non-free, but this
shouldn't prevent Debian and the FSF from continuing to work
together.
There are more problems with the GFDL than just the invariant
sections. Invariant sections are just the worst problem.
... Since RMS
seems unwilling to change anything, I'd say that _all_ GFDL'd works
have to go into non-free.
RMS did not say that. He listened to Debian's concerns, and
acknowledged that there were GDFL-related issues he had not previously
been aware of. He characterized them as *primarily*
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] The FSF is willing to characterize a document with
invariant sections as free because this allows the FSF to use such
sections to promote software freedom.
I'm not sure that is accurate. I *think* the FSF position is that free
documentation can be
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:06:39AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Debian should give RMS a chance to think for a while,
He's had over a year. We raised most of these concerns with the GNU FDL
1.1.
His response was the GNU FDL 1.2.
Perhaps he is counting on our continued lack of action to let
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:18:37 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes No. For example, a Free Software author wants to warn user
for a specific usage of the software. The classical example is a
RFID software that can be used as a tool against privacy. He adds a
warning note
RMS said:
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated.
OK... but...
I've explained
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not
debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
The
Have you simply ignored the explanations...
An insulting question like that doesn't deserve a response,
but I will answer anyway.
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases
Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
solution by having a DFSG for documentation ?
You would also need to amend the Social Contract to change 1. Debian
will remain 100% Free Software which would no longer be
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 14:58, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
And even the FSF
will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB
manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then
the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts.
No, the FSF will
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it in order to give themselves an
ability to share that
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:37:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of
documentation and software seems to not be the same.
Doesn't the GNU FDL invite
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
the sole motivation for this policy,
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
True, but this kind of problem never bites people who just use the
GPL, while it seems to be biting people
On 31/05/03 18:48 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
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
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
At least one situation comes to mind where it might happen: If I wanted
to publish a collection of HOWTOs, e.g., from the LDP. If every one of
them included front and back cover texts, that'd be a mountain.
There is no difficulty at all here. This collection would be an
aggregate,
Hi RMS,
On Mittwoch 28 Mai 2003 00:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Then, why
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
In a nightmare one can imagine large numbers of
cover texts in one manual, but it isn't likely to happen. Where the
BSD advertising clause produced a mountain, the GFDL produces a
molehill.
At least one situation comes
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:13:26AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
Well, *I* don't think the forced-advertising clause is Free.
I do realize that I'm
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:20:11PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I
Perhaps the best thing to do is contact someone from the Wikipedia and
ask them to summarize the situation in a mail to RMS, and relate to him
whether or not they felt burnt, or perceived a threat of inconvenience
large enough to cripple their project.
They can do that if they
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
so while RMS's reasoning may be to some degree inconsistent here
(advocating against one inconvenient license and for another),
This
Hi,
On Sonntag 25 Mai 2003 01:19, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Then, why are
But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
end user?
I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have an
invariant sections piled on in large quantities is a
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
discussing whether they are
David B Harris said:
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
end user?
I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have an
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:29:46PM +, John Holroyd wrote:
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
end user?
I
Richard Braakman wrote:
Whoops, I misread the very part I quoted! Yes, I think this says
that you may translate Invariant Sections. I was momentarily
confused by the phrasing (you may include translations vs.
you may translate).
Of course, it then makes sense to make your translation an
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
discussing whether they
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.
Then, why are there so many political essays under the
Richard Braakman said:
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:57:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to do this, I must maintain the invariant sections.
These invariant sections (written in English) are unreadable to the
Elbonians.
I could also translate the invariant section to Elbonian, but
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR your only version of reconsider?
In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Actually, I'm a little unclear on the latter point.
Yes, it is at least DFSG 3 that I and many others believe invariant
sections violate.
To what extent
are non-functional restrictions OK for Debian? For instance, the
GPL's
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Frankly this claim that it is always better to keep the manual
separate--as if it is always better to keep data separate from code--is a
shocking and nonsensical claim from someone with such a distinguished Lisp
background as
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well. There are several categories of GNU People. If you mean
contributors to FSF-copyrighted projects, then these are the views I've
seen:
1. The FDL is repugnantly non-free. We tried to convince RMS, who runs
the FSF
Oops, now posting my reply to the list as I originally intended...
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 18:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Frankly this claim that it is always better to keep the manual
separate--as if it is always better to keep
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Holroyd wrote:
On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
There are free software licenses that have restrictions that I find
annoying and inconvenient. One is the old BSD license. I worked for
several years to convince Berkeley to remove the
Scripsit Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For instance, the GPL's clause 2c (message at an interactive prompt)
is uncontroversial,
Not quite. I don't think it would have been accepted today by d-l in a
new license if it had not been (effectively) grandfathered in by being
part of the GPL.
--
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A number of people have posted long lists of supposed reasons why the
GFDL is not a free license. I have not seen one that is valid, but I
cannot comment on each point. It takes longer to refute an attack
than to make one, and the critics outnumber
Richard Stallman wrote:
Many examples have been given for why this is *false*, and they're
pretty much all tied to the *non-removability* rather than the
non-modifiability. Should we repeat them again?
I've looked at these reasons, and they did not convince me the first
time;
Richard Stallman wrote:
But that the issue is a moot point, because a reference card would use
so little of the text of the manual that it would be fair use. In
fact, the very idea that a reference card is derived from the manual
in copyright terms seems like an unrealistic idea.
UK copyright
Many examples have been given for why this is *false*, and they're
pretty much all tied to the *non-removability* rather than the
non-modifiability. Should we repeat them again?
I've looked at these reasons, and they did not convince me the first
time; repeating them won't convince
But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
statement, I cannot really regard the manual as free. And I would not
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I am insufficiently aware of the philosophical basis for the existence
of fair use in US copyright law to know where else might be affected -
does the rest of Europe have general fair use provisions?
Fair use appears to be a US invention. European copyright laws
of
On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
There are free software licenses that have restrictions that I find
annoying and inconvenient. One is the old BSD license. I worked for
several years to convince Berkeley to remove the advertising clause,
which I called obnoxious. If the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
statement, I cannot really
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
John Holroyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
FWIW I think RMS is right to insist that others cannot modify his
political comments, but I think you are right to say that unmodifiable
comments and texts (UTs) have no place being mandatorily included in
the functional world of Free Software.
Personally,
Barak Pearlmutter said:
lots of important and correct stuff snipped
Simply make the GFDL be GPL compatible, the same way the LGPL was.
Add a clause saying that the covered materials can be construed as
source code and used under the GPL; and that the invariant sections
should, under such
When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what counts as free
software, or free documentation, they
But in more practical terms even, political speech is very functional
-- it's meant to persuade and educate. By the same token it can have
bugs (typos or poor phraseology), malware (screeds advocating racism,
or encouraging people to kill themselves), and can be improved and/or
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what counts as
Hi Richard Stallman,
The idea of merging the documentation into the software is in general
a purely academic issue--a hoop that there is no reason to jump through.
It is always better to keep the manual separate and have the program
display it, as in fact Emacs already does in sophisticated
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 may be true of some
J?r?me Marant said:
En r?ponse ? Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
licenses?
(without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
exist to do a job. The users have a right to control
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
contradicted its
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
exist to do a job. The users have a right to control
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:01:12 -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Frankly, this whole episode saddens me tremendously. I have the
utmost respect for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
know that you were out there,
Jaime E . Villate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
example, I protested that the FSF's
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:01:12PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
of, say, air traffic controllers is
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 19:37, Branden Robinson wrote:
Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
of, say, air traffic controllers is
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I agree with the stance that this documentation is not, in
fact, Free, I'd like to point out that the GFDL does not reflect any
change in RMS's stance: the Emacs manual has always been licensed
with invariant sections, for instance. Richard
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:08:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message saying
non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
packages that they redistribute. We did this by putting invariant
political statements
A number of people have said some intemperate things in this thread,
but I really think that this comes down to a matter of 90%
miscommunication, and 10% differences in circumstances. I believe
that a meeting of minds should be possible, since we share the exact
same goal here: WHAT IS BEST FOR
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finally, would you consider a manual that used the GNU FDL -- or claimed
to do so -- which marked a non-Secondary Section as Invariant to be
Free as in freedom?
No, it is not free. If any GNU package contains such a manual,
please
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
disagree about Debian's practice of
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We also
disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please? For part of
Debian to recommend non-free software is a breach of policy, which
says that Debian
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
This is not the question. Do you believe that the GNU FDL is a
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
contradicted its own reasing in the why free manuals are important
document; the
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned about:
1) Cover Texts[1]
2) Acknowledgements and
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
I don't see
RMS,
There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important,
which you elided from your replies. I am intensely interested in your
answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you
could take some time to answer them.
Your answers to my other questions have
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:32:25AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, all right, but this makes it more difficult for me to dismiss
substantive objections from dismissive or belittling remarks.
Err, s/to dismiss/to distingush/
I apologize for the error.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We also
disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please?
That we distribute it is
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
You raised one point that I am concerned about:
* Debugging with GDB; GDB version 5 May 2000[1]
[1] This manual is an interesting case because it started out with no
invariant sections at all, but later adopted
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses?
(without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know
of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Not consistently. The GNU FDL is a licensing initiative that is
apparently intended to be used for all FSF documentation. The
traditional GNU documentation license did not always include Invariant
Sections.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often
a free fork which gets maintained. If that happens to some non-free
documentation as well, that's fine, but I don't think you will find
many volunteers to
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
licenses?
(without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I
know
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:28:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I
know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is
Richard Stallman.
(Georg Greve does also
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 10:16:00AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know
of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard
Stallman.
What about the thread you started here:
Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
I don't see a reason to do so, but I won't absolutely rule it out.
Finally,
In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some
did not. Today that is still the case. However, in the past we
needed an ad hoc license to have invariant sections. What changed
with the GFDL is that it is a single license that covers both cases.
Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abandon its use of
non-free licenses for manuals?
That
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
