Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
> As evidence that the FSF's attempt to disseminate their philosophy by
> piggybacking it on technical manuals using the GFDL is flawed, I present
> the fact that none of the people that the FSF's views seem to have
> reached via this vector are capable of reasoning clearly about the
> difference between stuff Debian wants to distribute (manuals) and stuff
> Debian doesn't want to distribute (sociology books).
When you distribute the DFSG, you distribute also your philosophy. Are
you ashamed of it?
> > Finally, in manual, you can have a part which is really "a manual"
> > specific part, which should be free. But you can have also a part
> > that express a political stand, for example, and this part should
> > not be modified, because it would be a lack of respect for the
> > believes of the manual author. This part should be invariant.
> Yes, and our goal is to always respect authors: by not distributing
> works that they don't wish to make available under the terms of the
Including the GPL and the DFSG?
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
Not a native english speaker: