Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.