On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:47:28PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly, > > You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not > to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this > is not a court, not a cross-examination. You decide what to say, and > so do I. I won't always discuss what you want me to. Where else are we to get the answers we're looking for? In fact, that's one of the questions you've elected not to answer: who, aside from yourself, is qualified to speak on these matters? -- who knows why (in detail) the GNU FDL was drafted and the rationale(s) for each clause? Your selection of questions which you'll deign to answer have done little (to date) to elucidate the GNU FDL. It seems more that you expect the Debian Project to take or leave the GNU FDL as-is, and do so in ignorance of the specific motivations behind it[1]. This is not an approach that fosters a spirit of community; it more closely resembles a papal edict. [1] Yes, there's the "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" essay, but that essay does nothing to explain why the GNU FDL should be preferred over the traditional GNU documentation license. -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand branden@debian.org | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
Attachment:
pgpS9CgbOzI_9.pgp
Description: PGP signature