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

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?

Many Myths are based on truth Spock, "The Way to Eden", stardate
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: