Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
>     with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
>     distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
>     fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative
>     guidelines that should apply to documentation.
> 
> I don't plan to discuss even small GFDL changes here.  I think people
> will present a proposal for guidelines for free documentation for
> Debian.

*Plonk*

That about says it all.  So why are we bothering with this discussion?

We should gather the relevant links to the discussion, the few web
documents people have prepared outlining the problems we see in the
GFDL, post it here in preparation for a slashdot article in which:

 - Some people will rant about RMS prefixing *GNU* to Linux.

 - Some people will rant that Debian is even more fanatical then RMS.

 - A few people will take our side.

Let's be ready for the deluge of rants...

Peter