Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    > My experience is just the opposite: our views are mostly suppressed.
    > The open source movement is very effective at substituting their word
    > for ours.  I find that most of the people who use our software have
    > never even heard of our philosophy.

    I find that to be a cheap, and unworthy shot by you against the Open Source
    movement. It lowers my opinion of you, and by your strong association with
    it, the FSF. To cry conspiracy because a like-minded group "is more
    effective" at spreading the word casts you in a lunatic, fanatical light.

You're shining a lunatic, fanatical spotlight on my words--it doesn't
come from them.

The widespread nature of the practice of writing about the GNU system,
using only the terminology and the ideas of "open source", is a fact.
Some do this having no knowledge that the free software movement
exists, but many do know and do it anyway.  If they do this simply
because they want to boost the open source movement, that is not
conspiracy, and not malicious, but it is still substituting their word
for ours.

    I would appreciate if in future you would restrict you comments to the
    need for the Invariant sections within the GFDL.

The issue at hand for Debian is whether to include GFDL-covered
manuals in the Debian GNU/Linux system.  I am sticking to that issue.