Re: Can the FSF be corrupted
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> 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 this has changed in the *mumble* years I've
been online and I don't see much reason to believe that it has from
before that. I think it's just that the FDL makes it more obvious to
those who hadn't remarked on the "verbatim reproduction only" notices
on http://www.gnu.org/ etc.
I'm not 100% sure that there aren't some bugs in the current FDL too,
though. It would be nice to see more published (and not just on
mailing lists) about it, to address things like concerns about
encryption for privacy, etc. What it appears to say seems rather odd.
[...]
The manuals are not software.
The manuals are not available on computer?
[...] And that system needs documentation, which is
free documentation according to the FSF definition of free
documentation.
Can you point me to the FSF definition of free documentation?
I think as I said before that a documentation is not a software --
different enough to be ruled differently.
If some piece of documentation is not software, it is not possible for
it to be in debian, sorry.
Because what matters are not the freedom in the end, but what you can
do with, what freedom brings to you.
Exactly.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Reply to: