Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago, some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be removed (even though they could not be modified), nobody would ever remove them. Now people are saying they would indeed be removed. NO NO NO. Nobody said that nobody would ever remove the sections; they said nobody would remove them IF they were free. But free requires that they be both modifiable and removable. If they were that, they would be there. The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label our manuals as non-free, an appelation I disagree with and will criticize, but at least it cannot remove them. Yep, it can. The manuals will be removed. But now I see that this idea has a serious drawback: Debian would probably immediately remove the invariant sections and distribute the manual sans invariant sections under the GPL. I think that nixes it. Why not make the sections changeable?
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the needs of the larger Free Software community. It serves the free software community by resisting the counterproductive efforts of well-meaning but dogmatic Debian developers.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
While superficially ironic, this is in fact quite fundamental: you cannot truly build a free society without granting its participants the freedom to reject the very notion of freedom itself. The idea that people should be free to reject freedom is a fundamental philosophical mistake--the same mistake that the BSD developers use to argue against the GNU GPL. There is little I can say to people whose views are so remote from mine, and whose conditions for cooperation are unacceptable. So I've concluded there is no point in my discussing these issues further here. Henceforth I will no longer post on debian-legal except to correct false statements about me or the GNU Project or the FSF.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. You have misunderstood. I have already said this twice, so I hope you'll read those messages. You are rather impatient with me for not reading a couple of messages before they arrived, but you could do better. If you work at it, you could send me a dozen messages about the same point before I see even one of them. Then you could rebuke me for ignoring a dozen explanations instead of just two. That would surely prove I am approaching this with ill will. It was already explained clearly not long ago, and you have either forgotten (unlikely), or were unable to understand the explanation (unlikely), or some third explanation, like you are not being honest or careful. Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of forgetting and misunderstanding. But we can avoid smearing other people by calling them liars on hardly any grounds.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
You should probably read the whole thread before replying. Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages saying... I can't do that. Those messages probably did not arrive on my machine until after I sent my message out. I do mail transfers in batches, usually once or twice a day. This means that I send out the messages I have written in the past X hours or day, and then receive the messages sent to me during that time. I am always responding to yesterday's mail, not today's. As a result, it can easily look like I am ignoring the most recent mail sent to me, when in fact I have not seen it. This provides frequent opportunities to lecture me and then rebuke me for not paying attention to all the previous lectures, all because of a message I sent before any of them arrived. People here repeatedly take advantage of such opportunities, and this is another reason why I have decided stop discussing the matter.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. Notice that the first person said DFSG free, and you said cannot be modified. Those are not the same things. All parts of a DFSG free doc can be modified. You're right, I misunderstood that point. I did not realize that If the whole doc was DFSG free meant if the political essays could be modified, because I didn't imagine anyone would be so extreme--until someone said it explicitly and unmistakably. Also, some messages posted here a few months ago seemed to express an opposite view, that unmodifiable but removable essays would be ok, and nobody disagreed with that at the time. Anyway, I stand corrected on that point. The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago, some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be removed (even though they could not be modified), nobody would ever remove them. Now people are saying they would indeed be removed. The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label our manuals as non-free, an appelation I disagree with and will criticize, but at least it cannot remove them. I was considering the idea of making the GFDL say You can use this material under the GPL too (aside from the invariant sections, which cannot be modified). Someone rightly reminded me a week ago that commercial publishers might be reluctant to use the GPL alternative, which was a point in favor of it. But now I see that this idea has a serious drawback: Debian would probably immediately remove the invariant sections and distribute the manual sans invariant sections under the GPL. I think that nixes it.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label our manuals as non-free, an appelation I disagree with and will criticize, but at least it cannot remove them. Sure it can. It can move them to non-free. (Or perhaps you mean the Invariant Sections by `them'?) It is likely to happen now that you have stated that you will no longer be discussing the issue. I guess we have closure. I was considering the idea of making the GFDL say You can use this material under the GPL too (aside from the invariant sections, which cannot be modified). Someone rightly reminded me a week ago that commercial publishers might be reluctant to use the GPL alternative, which was a point in favor of it. But now I see that this idea has a serious drawback: Debian would probably immediately remove the invariant sections and distribute the manual sans invariant sections under the GPL. I think that nixes it. We would surely do this if the section were still invariant, only to make the whole content of wat is distributed by us free. We would surely _not_ remove the philosophy sections (that are current Invariant) if they were also GPL'ed. Peter
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
[RMS not CCed] On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:09:20PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of forgetting and misunderstanding. But we can avoid smearing other people by calling them liars on hardly any grounds. Well, it's good to see that RMS is not universally intolerant. Just intolerant of me... Will someone friendly with RMS let me know in the event he ever decides we're on speaking terms again? -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. Well in that case you can rest assured that they will be removed from Debian together with the documentation to which they are attached!
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
O Luns, 22 de Setembro de 2003 ás 10:57:37 -0400, Richard Stallman escribía: Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would be DFSG-free and nobody would have any reason to remove them. Even if they were removable but not modifiable, they would still not be DFSG-free, so the only way to get a DFSG-free document would be to have them removed. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. Well, in that case they'll make the document DFSG-nonfree. If they were removable and modifiable the document would be DFSG-free (except for the DRM clause, of course). So, to summarize: Removable and modifiable - Debian would most certainly carry them Removable but unmodifiable - Debian would remove them Unremovable and unmodifiable - Debian would not carry the document at all -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Tuesday, Sep 23, 2003, at 03:30 US/Eastern, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Well, in that case they'll make the document DFSG-nonfree. If they were removable and modifiable the document would be DFSG-free (except for the DRM clause, of course). The DRM clause isn't all. There is also the transparent form definition (excluding, e.g., OpenOffice); and, as has been recently pointed out to me, the requirements for distributing opaque forms in quantities over 100. If you distribute opaque forms in quantities over 100 via FTP, you can't just place the transparent forms on the same server. Instead, you must force the user to download the transparent form as well, or you must keep the transparent form around for a year. I've already emailed with RMS about this, and he says he'll look into it. There may be more...
Looking Forward to a DFSG Free GFDL [Was: Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise]
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the needs of the larger Free Software community. It serves the free software community by resisting the counterproductive efforts of well-meaning but dogmatic Debian developers. I guess it seems odd to me to hearing someone like yourself who believes strongly in Freedom to call others who believe as strongly (or even more so) in Freedom dogmatic. Dogmatic or not, Freedom is very important to us. You may call efforts to assure our freedoms counterproductive, as I would guess many of your peers and/or supervisors at MIT called your efforts to establish GNU and the FSF counterproductive. I, for one, don't think that working to increase or maintain freedom is ever counterproductive. Looking forward, I sincerely hope that the FSF and GNU will consider drafting amendments to the GFDL that will remove the issues that hinder it from acceptance into Debian. Can you enlighten us on how such a process would work in the FSF and/or GNU? If that doesn't happen, your only recourse (assuming you would like GFDL documents in Debian) is to find a Debian Developer willing to work with you to draft and propose on -project a GR to modify our foundation documents to allow for licenses along the lines of the GFDL into Debian. I'm not personally aware of a DD who feels that we should consider licenses like the GFDL separately from the DFSG, but I assume there are a few out there. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, Chew more! Do more! The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpLqQsCRroyq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. And what were their reasons? Probably to transform a non-DFSG free work into a free one. Probably not because it's a political essay they're removing. - Matt
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. If the *whole* doc was DFSG free, we would have no reason to remove the political statements. If the document contained unmodifiable essays that could be removed, we would be forced to remove them in order to maintain our commitments under the DFSG. This is not because we wish to remove your political statements - it is because we do not wish Debian to contain unmodifiable information outside that which is required by law. Where would our incentive to remove or modify modifiable political essays be? It's not a freedom we wish to exercise. It's a freedom that we wish our users to have. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question. You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. You have misunderstood. A section which is removable but invariant would have to be removed for the manual to be in Debian, because the DFSG prohibits both unremovable and invariant sections. But if the sections were both removable and modifiable, then nobody would be removing them in Debian. Thomas
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that. You have just said you would remove them. You misunderstood. We would remove them only if they were nonmodifiable. If they were both removable and modifiable, then we would keep them.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. You have misunderstood. I have already said this twice, so I hope you'll read those messages. It was already explained clearly not long ago, and you have either forgotten (unlikely), or were unable to understand the explanation (unlikely), or some third explanation, like you are not being honest or careful.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable content. If the whole doc was DFSG, there wouldn't *be* any essays that cannot be modified.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. Notice that the first person said DFSG free, and you said cannot be modified. Those are not the same things. All parts of a DFSG free doc can be modified. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: They're not Free under the 5 freedoms Yes, that should be 4 freedoms in case anyone was wondering. My freedoms are currently undergoing rapid inflation, which, ostensibly, is a good thing. Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpeisSnvKqe7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question. You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. No, I'm saying if you are aware of statements which cannot be removed in packages, plesae file an RC bug against the package containing them so the problem can be addressed. We're all human here, I think, and we occasionally miss parts of packages that are licensed in a manner that is not free under the DFSG. In other words, the fact that such unmodifyable, non-DFSG free statements exist in Debian doesn't mean that we have intentionally left them in Debian. If you make us aware of them, we will attempt to resolve the problem. A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. If it's still not clear, please respond so I can clarify further. Don Armstrong 1: I think most package maintainers (or at least, I) try to keep their packages as close to pristine upstream as possible while making sure they can be distributed by Debian and play correctly with other packages. Removing documentation isn't something that is typically done. -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpOX8n3xZKev.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 00:50]: If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question. You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to remove polical statements. And at least I would consider an attempt to remove a DFSG-free political essay from a DFSG-free manual as a severe impoliteness, and would of course try to stop this. Perhaps you should try to differ between have the right to and intend. It's not that some (or most) readers here want to remove your political statements - on contrary, most here are supporting your goals. It's just that Debian requires the freedom to modify. We require that from each software vendor, and also from the FSF. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that. You have just said you would remove them. We only distribute in Debian things that are DFSG Free. Unmodifiable political essays are not Free. In fact, anything that is unmodifiable[1] cannot be distributed in Debian, be it source code, political essays, or an Ode To a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer Morning. [They're not Free under the 5 freedoms, and they're certainly not Free under the DFSG.] If the political essays were DFSG free, the maintainers would (most likely) be happy to distribute them without modifying them. However, because they are not DFSG free, we cannot distribute them at all. Therefore, the maintainer tries to serve our users by distributing the largest subset that is Free, which forces him to exise the non-Free bits. [Now, we might distribute them in non-free, but frankly, I hope that section goes the way of the dodo relatively soon.] Don Armstrong 1: Ignoring licences and copyright statements, of course. -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgproXKeHmtld.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. If they[1] did, they spoke erroneously. However, what they almost surely said is that if the sections were DFSG Free, we would (probably) not remove them, and it's likely that we wouldn't modify them either. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the needs of the larger Free Software community. Don Armstrong 1: Whoever they is. I know you draft your messages offline, but it would be usefull if you could dig up a reference to where you are basing these statements on from time to time. Otherwise it is exceedingly difficult to understand where you are comming from. -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp8MerXCIzyh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. If they[1] did, they spoke erroneously. However, what they almost surely said is that if the sections were DFSG Free, we would (probably) not remove them, and it's likely that we wouldn't modify them either. Indeed -- observe the treatment of the KJV Bible, which many Debian developers disagree with even packaging, but which exists as Free Software in Debian: modifyable by Debian's users. I see no reason to believe the political essays of the FSF would receive worse treatment, were they equally free. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the needs of the larger Free Software community. More to the point, they are removable from Debian, and are apparently likely to be so removed. Functionally equivalent documentation will be written to replace them, presumably forked from the last DFSG-free manuals. So I find your apparent justification for Invariant political tracts -- that without them being Invariant sections tied to the documentation, they won't get enough air time to promote Free Software -- somewhat confusing. It appears they'd get more exposure, not less, from being Free as in Software. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that. You have just said you would remove them.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. These two statements are noticeably not in opposition. The DFSG do not contain any provisions for invariant sections, so in the case of a document containing invariant sections that can be removed but not modified, it cannot be said that the whole doc [is] DFSG free; the only form of the document which would be DFSG free is the one that has been stripped of the invariant sections. Yet indeed, if the whole document were freely modifiable, the political statements would almost certainly be left intact. While superficially ironic, this is in fact quite fundamental: you cannot truly build a free society without granting its participants the freedom to reject the very notion of freedom itself. This is true of software (developers must not be coerced into releasing their source, but must be allowed to see for themselves the value in exchanging access to their source for access to other copylefted works), and it's true of documentation. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgprduWuh4zVW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:27 -0400 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified. Yes, because any such essay would not be DFSG free, and DFSG free-ness is a prerequisite for inclusion of software[1] in main. For the political statements to remain, they would have to be both removable *and* modifiable. [2] Which part of If the whole doc was DFSG free did you fail to understand? [1] As in that which is not hardware, not just the programs therein. [2] Okay, if they were fully modifiable, then removable kind of goes without saying. The former is really just a subset of the latter, I accept.
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact that they are not free under the DFSG. The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be removed from our manuals, if the manuals' licenses permitted that. You have just said you would remove them. You should probably read the whole thread before replying. Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages saying that _we_ _wouldn't_ remove them if they _were_ _free_. They would only removed if they were Invariant and yet removable, in order to make the manuals free. If the sections in questions were DSFG-free, then we wouldn't need to remove them to make the manuals free. Peter
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
[RMS not CCed] On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:57:37AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable. Well, there you have it, folks. Richard's feet weren't *really* planted before, but they are now, and it's *all our fault*. :) Maybe he should thank us for aiding him in maintaining his integrity. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question. You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. If the political statements were not only removable, but also modifiable, then there would be no reason why Debian would have to remove them; and indeed, most of us are sympathetic to the message contained therein. But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0wHZFBBHqO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question. You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just theoretical. If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. -- Rémi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On 2003-09-21 23:33:28 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you would make a point of removing them. Please do not extrapolate wildly from his words. Wanting the freedom to do modify does not mean that it will be used. After all, we have the freedom to make all MTAs in Debian append Visit www.debian.org to every line of every message, but they do not. The preceding message is not evidence of bad people in Debian. I expect that anyone removing GNU opinion sections without replacement would get a nice bug report from some. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
