On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:11:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for > not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU > documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the > instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any > non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a > success. > > I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not, > hypocrisy . Whether or not anyone in Debian is taking a hypocritical position on this issue, I think it would be very inappropriate to *chastize* anyone for the fact that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG. The FSF have indeed never claimed that the GFDL was a Free Software license, and they don't claim that the same freedoms that are required for programs are required for documentation, either -- a position that you may recall is shared by a significant number of developers within Debian. We may have decided that extending the same freedoms to documentation and data as to programs is important enough for us to take a stand on, but by no means does that justify haughtiness towards our fellows in the Free Software community. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. email@example.com http://www.debian.org/  Wwhen an open organization such as Debian has individual members who hold *different* positions, one usually describes that as "schizophrenic", not "hypocritical"
Description: Digital signature