Re: A single unified license
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> The FSF is set up as a charitable corporation, which means its board is
> self-perpetuating. [...]
Please, pick one topic and stick with it. Do you really think that any
common form of accountability mechanism would have made any difference to
this situation? Do you really think that the FSF view on desirability
of free documentation being contained in free works has a direct impact
on their attitude to free software?
I'm not sure that people are opposed to the idea of FDL, but some
have problems accepting its current form. I do. I'm still hoping that
FSF will publish their detailed reasoning about why a GPL-incompatible
documentation licence that cannot be classed as free software is
necessary. I don't care about legacy publishers and don't understand
why these people who don't share our views are worth causing all these
problems, so there must be some other reasons. Mustn't there?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
Reply to: