On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:52:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:07:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > So there's now an option in the license of texinfo docs that would allow
> > > their copyright holders to spread vile anti-man(7) propaganda as part of
> > > the docs and force everyone else to do so too. That's a problematic option,
> > > but given that nobody's actually doing any such thing, is it problematic
> > > enough to kick out the whole thing? I really am not convinced.
> > >
> > > (Ignoring the DRM issue for the sake of the analogy.)
> >
> > It took months of careful analysis of the consequences for -legal to
> > become convinced that the GFDL was no good. The issues that you are
> > ignoring played a not-insignificant part in that. Don't expect to be
> > convinced by mild examples like the one you describe; they are fairly
> > minor symptoms, not descriptions of the problem.
>
> Well, if that's a minor symptom, what about the exceptions made in the DFSG
> in order to accomodate for the old BSD advertizing clause,
I don't believe we have any.
> and the TeX
> license?
What about it? I don't recall any issues with that.
> But then, never mind that question. Why haven't we simply voted on
> whether the no-good'ness of GFDL is enough to warrant the removal of suchly
> licensed things?
Because some people in the non-existant cabal have been actively
asking people to "not rock the boat" wrt the GFDL. So that one remains
on hold while the committee fails to make progress with the FSF.
> Why did we instead vote on seemingly innocent editorial
> changes that ended up implying a myriad of other things that turned out to
^^^^^^^^^^^
one
> be a bigger deal for the release manager than many had expected?
^^^^
anybody
Because it was easy and non-controversial and, like you said, nobody
expected the release manager to be using such a fucked up
interpretation of the old SC to justify the old release policy. Feel
free to ask him why he didn't mention that earlier, especially in
response to all the drafts which explicitly said they were supposed to
be collating all the non-controversial issues. Since he was blatantly
aware of them at the time, *that* is suspicious.
Really, trying to blame anybody but the one person who knew in advance
is ridiculous. The whole thing reeks of sour grapes.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature