Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:
>> Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
>> more so you menyioned it below.
>Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
>trying to insult me.
>I am aware what is meant by "free beer" but my question is this (and I
>think I was clear before):
>I do not see anything to link "Robinson, Nerode and other[s]" to the
>views you claim are theirs. They seem to object to invariant sections
in Debian because they are a restriction of freedom. They have not
>mentioned cost as a direct factor. Calling them "free beer zealots"
>because of that would be absurd, so you must be referring to something
>else. What is that?
I am sorry. As I already said, I just can't explain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between "free as speech" and "free as
beer", I have not any cure to help you.
>> Therefore, you can talk about DFSG-compliance as
>> representatives of Debian Project. Or you can talk about your
>> perception of free software on your own. But, IMNSHO, it will be
>> dishonest to talk as representatives of Debian Project, but founding
>> only upon your personal perception of free software.
>I try my hardest not to purport to be a representative of the project
>and most of the time my signature reminds people of that. I am not
>aware of having claimed to be representative of the project and again
>I wonder how your writing is relevant to the subject here.
Then why you talk about DFSG?
>> Therefore, according to FSD, free license may disallow a
>> distribution of modification, which clearly can't be improvement, or
>> restrict some ways for [useful] modification, if there obviously
>> more than one way to do it.
>This conclusion does not follow, as far as I can tell. Please
>explain your reasoning more clearly.
_My_ reasoning? I am not have any reasoning about that. I
just quote a FSD. Some more quotes below:
"However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of
distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict
with the central freedoms. "
"Rules about how to package a modified version are
acceptable, if they don't effectively block your freedom to release
modified versions."
>> According to most popular (however,
>> IMHO, incoherent) interpretation of DFSG, it may not. For example
>> GFDL will be free according the FSD. Do you still think that FSD is
>> better definition of Free Software? :-)
>If it were acceptable to apply FSD to FDL, I cannot see how it
>would be regarded as free software. FSF say that such an attempt
>to apply it is not sensible, rather than FDL is free software.
There may be a number of reasons to not call
"software" a printed EMACS manual in the bookstore. Or even the same
manual written on the CD. I believe that [suspected] incompliance
with FSF philosophy is not one of these reasons. Contrary to a
"random accusations" (as you brilliantly say) of free beer zealots,
FSF philosophy carefully crafted and well documented.
Reply to: