Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:
> There is no reason to think that Stallman is an idiot and can not
> see these semi-trivial arguments, presented here against GFDL.
> Contrary, in the past Stallman so many times was right, in very
> pragmatical sense of "right", whereas virtually everyone else was
> wrong, so he shall be far more credible than random subscriber of
> debian-legal. So, it may as well be seen as the test case for the
> DFSG as for the GFDL.
Ehe. In the past, Stallman and FSF have communicated answers to the
questions raised about their licences. For example, there is a lot
of material about the GPL, including a FAQ, on www.fsf.org For the GNU
FDL, so far they have not provided much information beyond some mailing
list participation that didn't answer some of the original questions,
unless ftpmaster or others have emails they're not telling us about.
In the absence of their data, we have to work with what we have.
"In God we trust. All others must bring data." I'm quite sure that
Stallman doesn't claim to be God, given his reported views.
If people reading this list can cause FSF to provide more data, please
do so. Personally, I am particularly interested in any legal reasoning,
especially behind the FDL being incompatible with free software.
Summaries of the concerns of others have been posted to this list at
intervals over the last few years and submitted to FSF consultations.
> Same for RFCs. It is the root of the Internet, which, in
> order, is the material root of the many most valuable modern
> freedoms.
I doubt that they really thought about things like the freedoms given
to users of text files of their documents.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: