On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:55, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html): > >Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to > >continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have > >always done. > > This seems to conflict with Anthony Towns's statement > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01022.html): > >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > >Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. > > Either: > 1. These members of the FSF don't know what they're doing, and have no > influence > 2. They're just trying to delay the removal of GFDL'ed material from main. > 3. These members have a great deal of influence over RMS. > 4. These members have the power to overrule RMS. 5. AJ, Martin, and/or others misunderstood the statement that the FSF is working to make the GFDL and GPL compatible licenses, and didn't consider the possibility that it was the GPL that would be modified. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part