[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is vrms really still a Virtual Richard M. Stallman?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:14:53PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
> I don't know whether to file a bug report or just laugh my head off.
> netsnipe@espresso:~% vrms
>               Non-free packages installed on espresso
> doc-linux-nonfree-text    Linux HOWTOs in ASCII format (non-free)
> doc-rfc-std               Standard RFCs
> Now we all know Richard M. Stallman's position on the GFDL, but I find
> it extremely ironic that his virtual persona in Debian now discriminates
> against his packages which uses a license his real self would approve. 

Out of curiosity, have you actually looked at the licences in
doc-linux-nonfree-text? Some of them are GFDL-with-invariant-sections,
but quite a number are licences that I think RMS would also disapprove
of for documentation (as opposed to personal statements).


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: