On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:47:42PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > >Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions to > >FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an > >encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which forbids > > Is it? Are you sure? Have you bothered to read the license whose use you advocate? > Or do you plan to distribute encrypted Debian CD's? ;) Why shouldn't people be free to do so? > It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects) > and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and > cons for the majority of people on the long terms. Sure; in the long run the USA PATRIOT act is much better for the freedom of people in the United States (not just citizens, but permanent residents and even visitors -- see the 14th Amendment) than that silly Bill of Rights thing. > FDL is free enough for Debian. FDL is free. Even under your own standard you have failed to make a case. You've said nothing except that the GNU FDL isn't "inconvenient enough" to be called non-free. You have not "summed up all the pros and cons". > I still wonder why people with the same ardour and consistency do not > speak about distribution of software in the non-free section? Why Debian > distributes non-free? You are obviously quite ignorant of Debian history. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200006/threads.html -- G. Branden Robinson | The best place to hide something is Debian GNU/Linux | in documentation. branden@debian.org | -- Ethan Benson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpFzcS44wkxL.pgp
Description: PGP signature