Joey Hess wrote: >> Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat >> different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy >> source code. > Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely > different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do > [...] just muddies the waters. I agree that they are different. I wasn't confusing the two ... I just chose my words in order to concede the point that it is impossible to deny categorically that software is any kind of speech. > PS: I think you know that terms like "censorship" and > "freedom of speech" are very loaded, and I resent you > dragging them into this discussion. Resent away. The words are relevant to the discussion. (Tip: Most readers of the mailing list don't want to waste their time reading personal attacks.) > Debian is not an organizaton formed to protect people's > freedom of speech. We are here to produce an excellent > operating system which our users are free to use and > modify as they see fit. Where that conflicts with freedom > of speech, we should throw freeodm of speech out the > window. I think that that is a reasonable position to take. To be consistent with it you should draw up DF Documenatation G in such a way as to exclude invariant-text licenses from the main archive altogether. If this is the way Debian decides to go, though, then I would like to see the policy applied consistently. Richard Braakman wrote: > What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, > namely forced speech. I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of "force", but that's mere semantics I suppose. I do agree that the various authors of a document may disagree about what they want it to contain, and that resolving the matter by means of "invariant sections" licenses is not to treat documentation in the same way as Debian treats software. -- Thomas Hood
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part