Re: GFDL
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:32:46PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> For the FSF, freedom is the message, and has to be conveyed. FSF's
> invariant clauses speak of free software and how users' rights are
> affected by software. FSF is not, should not (and justifiably so)
> concerned with, or can control what other people who use the GFDL (NOT
> FSF's GFDL'd work) put in their invariant clauses. FSF rarely puts
> technical info in invariant clauses. Its invariant clauses are very
> small.
If they're not concerned with other people's use of the license, then
they should use it but not advocate it.
However, they *are* advocating its use, and therefore to not be concerned
with its misuse would be extremely irresponsible.
> RMS informed me when he was here (in January) that (1) he is not aware
> of this committee, (2) he sees no problem with the GFDL. Obviously,
> the communication `gap' still persists.
You might want to pass that on to Benj. Mako Hill <mako@debian.org>,
who was a member of the committee on Debian's side.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>