On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Bruce Parens has already given his take on it. Which was completely uninformed. He did not read the thread or participate in the discussion. He heard second-hand that someone on this mailing list was concerned about the freeness of the GNU FDL. So he fired off a mail to a list he doesn't read and left it at that. > Why do you think it's accident? Because you were apparently ignorant > of the facts does not imply that everyone was. Emacs was already in Debian before I was a developer, or even a user of Debian. I was not in a position to participate in discussions of its inclusion. Furthermore, I have a great deal more familiarity with licensing issues now than I did several years ago. Sorry I'm not enough of an old-timer for you. > Except, the Emacs manual has *ALWAYS* had the form it does now, or > nearly so. The license hasn't. The GNU FDL is drastically different from the traditional GNU documentation license. > Are you happy with it, or not? Does it matter? Again, you demonstrate your obsession with personal opinions of mine that are orthogonal to the content of my proposal. Please stay on topic. -- G. Branden Robinson | It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux | mouth, I've got my finger on the branden@debian.org | trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr.
Attachment:
pgpqYsHXZLUtf.pgp
Description: PGP signature