On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:06:39AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Debian should give RMS a chance to think for a while, He's had over a year. We raised most of these concerns with the GNU FDL 1.1. His response was the GNU FDL 1.2. Perhaps he is counting on our continued lack of action to let the GNU FDL get more entrenched in the community, blindly adopted by people who don't understand its consequences. The fact that GNU Manuals which never had Invariant Sections (of any stripe) before now bear them (case in point, the GDB Manual), makes it clear to me that GNU FDL + Invariant Sections is the new orthodoxy for the FSF. *Someone* needs to be subjecting the GNU FDL to close scrutiny, and insisting that it satisfy the same high standards that the GNU GPL does. To deserve the universal application that the FSF appears to be seeking for it, it must not only technically meet the requirements of freedom, but it must also be a *wise* license. I am not convinced that it possesses either of these attributes. Someone must speak up. If not we, then who? If not now, then when? -- G. Branden Robinson | I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. branden@debian.org | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpxtUeJycEEO.pgp
Description: PGP signature