Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> Jaime E . Villate <villate@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
>> > > example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
>> > > contradicted its own reasing in the "why free manuals are important"
>> > > document; the result was that the FSF changed the document.
>> >
>> > Do you have the previous version of the document?
>> You can easily do that using the viewcvs interface to www.gnu.org
>>
>> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/?cvsroot=www.gnu.org
>> ...
>> I've failed to find the document "why free manuals are important" that
>> Thomas Bushnell refers. Can he point out in viewcvs the two versions
>> where the alleged change of the document occurred and some prove of
>> the correlation with his protest?
>
> Well, that document is free-doc.html, so:
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/philosophy/free-doc.html?cvsroot=www.gnu.org
>
> CVS begins Feb 13 2001. The first version is pretty much the same as
> the first. Did this happens before 2001?
The oldest version the Wayback Machine has is from February 24, 1999,
and is identical to the current version. See
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224050619/www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
--Dylan
Reply to: