Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
> It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street.
> This is the standard that applies to both sides. Are there questions
> you think Debian hasn't answered? Has Debian announced that it will
> ignore whatever you say because you have been cruel and dismissive
> towards us? Nope, we're still here.
By reading Richard, I did not understood that he will ignore whatever
*some-people* say because they have been cruel and aggressive. I
understood that he will ignore whatever *some-people* say until they
stop to be cruel and aggressive.
Did I miss the point? Maybe.
Anyway, this kind of debate (about how someone is good or bad) is
usually endless and sterile.
I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent
questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction?
Which question is left? How the invariant section may not be
free-software according the DFSG but free-documentation according to
the GNU project? Well, I'm not sure it's possible to find a way out of
As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are
distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it
be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG
documentation', which would be distributed by GNU and 'not considered as
part of Debian'?
It would allow users (something that Debian cares about) that do not
want 'non-free software' at all but accept 'free-documentation as
defined by the GNU project' to be able to use apt-get easily, easier
than if 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' was mixed
with 'non-free software'.
I speak in my name only (it should be obvious, but I know this is
not for everybody).
Not a native english speaker: