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 [email@example.com]