Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:07:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > So there's now an option in the license of texinfo docs that would allow
> > their copyright holders to spread vile anti-man(7) propaganda as part of
> > the docs and force everyone else to do so too. That's a problematic option,
> > but given that nobody's actually doing any such thing, is it problematic
> > enough to kick out the whole thing? I really am not convinced.
> >
> > (Ignoring the DRM issue for the sake of the analogy.)
>
> It took months of careful analysis of the consequences for -legal to
> become convinced that the GFDL was no good. The issues that you are
> ignoring played a not-insignificant part in that. Don't expect to be
> convinced by mild examples like the one you describe; they are fairly
> minor symptoms, not descriptions of the problem.
Well, if that's a minor symptom, what about the exceptions made in the DFSG
in order to accomodate for the old BSD advertizing clause, and the TeX
license? But then, never mind that question. Why haven't we simply voted on
whether the no-good'ness of GFDL is enough to warrant the removal of suchly
licensed things? Why did we instead vote on seemingly innocent editorial
changes that ended up implying a myriad of other things that turned out to
be a bigger deal for the release manager than many had expected? Could we
have used a larger and more destructive hammer for what was a reasonably
small nail?
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: