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

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

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> >
> >>It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since 
> >>it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here.
> >
> >
> >Cool!  Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug?  Someone tell the RM.
> Note, I meant bug in wording, not in intention.

How do you know what the FSF's intentions are with respect to the GNU
FDL?  RMS has been extremely cagey when asked questions directly on this

The FSF has published a paper explaining why the feel a "free
documentation license" is needed, but as far as I know they have never
gone on record as to exactly how each requirement of the GNU FDL defends

If you have citations that will clarify these issues, please provide

G. Branden Robinson                |      "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      The original Latin seems to have
branden@debian.org                 |      been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: pgpYEPqAoo5CS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: