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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
> There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and 
> proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical 
> reasoning. As Josselin Mouette said:
>  > Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if
>  > they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?
> This is a good example of the freedom, which is not used. So, why not to 
> take away it?

What the hell? "Not many people are using this freedom, so let's just
take it away." Ignoring the fact that many people on this list have
proposed many reasons why the freedom to remove them *is* desirable, the
idea "I don't use my freedom so I'll get rid of it" is the second
dumbest thing I've read in 24 hours, after accusations of Debian's
"censorship" of documents.

I never used my freedom to modify /bin/du - let's take that away, too.
/bin/less hasn't been changed since January, and I remember it working
fine for 7 years before that (and I'm told before that, too); I think we
don't need freedom to modify it anymore, either.

> I do not think Debian can safely ignore proprietary software existence, 
> as some people on this list do[1]. If the world would be 
> black-and-white, I will put FDL on the white side of the black-and-white 
> world, together with GPL, FSF, Debian.
> While we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed 
> by Debian.

While Debian is working hard to maintain a complete free software
operating system, clearly non-free software is being advocated by you,
and published by the Free Programs-But-Not-Documentation Foundation.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: