On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:22, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> [2003-08-28 02:10]: > > Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the > > project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological > > problem. ;-) > > It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that > topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about it. > > ,-----------------------> Cite from the last DWN <----------------------- > | Members of the FSF have approached us to give them some more time to > | come up with a GNU FDL which is DFSG-free before we move packages in > | question to non-free and experience bigger controversies. > `-----------------------> Cite from the last DWN <----------------------- > > We would definitely experience bigger controversies if we put this > online at this stage of the discussion. Definitely the wrong time for > the suggestion currently, thanks for trying to resolve the issue in a > sensible way... DWN is wrong. Members of the FSF approached Martin, who approached AJ, who offhandedly mentioned it. The only times the FSF (in the form of RMS) have approached "us" as a project, is on debian-legal, and he has made it very clear that he has no intention of changing the GNU FDL. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part