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

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
>> encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which forbids
> Is it? Are you sure? Or do you plan to distribute encrypted Debian CD's? ;)

This is a question which has been asked of FSF, as it certainly looks
like it might be.  Why don't you read the licence and see what you think?

> It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects) 
> and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and 
> cons for the majority of people on the long terms.

That is what the DFSG does, but you claim we are wrong to do so.  Huh?

> FDL is free enough for Debian. FDL is free.

The FDL is not a free software licence.  Agree?

> I still wonder why people with the same ardour and consistency do not 
> speak about distribution of software in the non-free section? Why Debian 
> distributes non-free?

Some of us would love to see non-free go away, but we know what we agreed
to and we know that this has been discussed in the not-too-distant past,
so reopening that argument seems pointless at the moment.  When there
is new information or a significant change in DD opinion, it may be
raised again.

If only some of the people in the documents/FDL discussions would do the
same... Like the message in my supervisor's office used to say:
   "In god we trust.  All others must bring data."

MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://slef@jabber.at

Reply to: