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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <jerome.marant@free.fr> wrote:
> En réponse à MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>:
>> You are complaining to the wrong people, I think.  Fix the licence,
>> not the social contract.
> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me.

I think that is the conclusion we are slowly moving towards and
it's a terrible shame.

> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they
> are not on GNU side ...

a. Debian supporters, please do not go off the deep end at FSF on this
issue, but do what you must to keep Debian true to its goals.

b. GNU helpers, please ask for free documentation from GNU to be
free software too. Asking for free software documentation to be free
software itself is reasonable. We do not need to give these concessions
to publishers. Please let us know that you are trying.

c. FSF, please listen!  Debian has tried to be a faithful and helpful
part of the free software community, not some collection of morons. Does
that count for nothing? Are your helpers happy with this either?

It is a shame that debian-legal seems to be the largest visible group
getting indigestion from this problem. The argument that we should aid
unfree book producers seems as reasonable as the argument that we should
offer concessions to unfree software producers: not at all.


Reply to: