On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:21:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL
> > > and similar licences.
> > I think "Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?" in the proposed FAQ I
> > just posted in reply to Richard's message covers this. Could you have a
> > look at it to see if you agree?
> I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the section on why
> we think software and documentation should be treated equally under the DFSG
> (quite a good argument there, BTW) there's nothing there about why we can't
> as a project, for instance, just relax the rules of the DFSG generally.
Well, obviously, we can.
The only reason we should is if unmodifiable sections aren't a problem, but
we claim they are.
> Why can't the DFSG be modified to accomodate the restrictions imposed by the
> FDL? After all, RMS endorses it, so why shouldn't you?
Because RMS is wrong -- unmodifiable sections are a problem, for the reasons
listed, probably amongst others.
> I'm not putting that up as the canonical form of the Q&A, but it reinforces
> to me why the GFDL needs fixing, and not us.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpLCrrebJECr.pgp
Description: PGP signature