Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
On 24 Mar 2006, Thien-Thi Nguyen verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>
>> It also seems to be the norm for documentation that seems to
>> be coming from the GNU project, so I think my take on this is
>> correct -- _ALL_ those documents can't all have the exact same
>> oversight.
>
> it's ok to posit a hypothesis. what steps have you taken to test
> it? a program's source expresses its intention, but a programmer's?
> (how can you know the true intention of people without talking to
> them?)
Copyrights and licenses are legal matters, and a court would
look at the license, not an interpretation of intentions. I am doing
my upstream the courtesy of assuming they know what they are doing,
and taking the license terms as written.
> if a program needs to DTRT but doesn't, a programmer can fix it by
> changing its source. but what if a programmer is in the same
> situation?
Debian has been talking to the FSF about these issues since
2002 that I know of, and there has been a formally delegated
negotiating team since the winter of 2003. I would think that people
are aware of these issues, and Debian's unease with the license.
After half a decade of talking around about it, don't you
think one should accept that people actually do know what their
license terms mean?
manoj
--
Many Myths are based on truth Spock, "The Way to Eden", stardate
5832.3
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: