On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:21:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL > > > and similar licences. > > I think "Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?" in the proposed FAQ I > > just posted in reply to Richard's message covers this. Could you have a > > look at it to see if you agree? > I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the section on why > we think software and documentation should be treated equally under the DFSG > (quite a good argument there, BTW) there's nothing there about why we can't > as a project, for instance, just relax the rules of the DFSG generally. Well, obviously, we can. The only reason we should is if unmodifiable sections aren't a problem, but we claim they are. > Why can't the DFSG be modified to accomodate the restrictions imposed by the > FDL? After all, RMS endorses it, so why shouldn't you? Because RMS is wrong -- unmodifiable sections are a problem, for the reasons listed, probably amongst others. > I'm not putting that up as the canonical form of the Q&A, but it reinforces > to me why the GFDL needs fixing, and not us. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature