Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>> May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
>> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
>> if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
>> Manifesto and continue to use it)
>Maybe he will decide not to use sendmail if he knows that it
>was written by a homosexual, or music123 if he knows that it
>was written by an atheist.
Maybe.
>That doesn't mean that we have to send some documentation along
>with sendmail or music123 that indicates the author's beliefs.
It is not a duty of distributor to care about such things.
Users may care about this[1]. Authors may care about this. Not
distributors.
>> According to my understanding of your words, all that a bit
>> stricter than public domain is not free. And even a bit of
>> discrimination toward proprietary OS makes software non-free. Right?
>No. And I have no idea where you would get that idea.
Well. Then, please, provide several examples of
restrictions, which, according to your feelings, do not taint a
license. Of course, please do not mention any restriction, existed
in the GPL, BSD, or Artistic licenses. By the obvious reason, they
are not subject of voluntary consideration.
>> Please excuse me, but I do not believe that "let things go
>> beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion" is the
>> official position of any free software organisation and,
>> particularly, the Debian Project.
>The DFSG says that _anyone_ can change free software and redistribute
>and use free software for _any_ purpose.
Is there any connection between "can change, redistribute
and use free software" and these strange "points of control"?
[1] Please note, that deletion of section in-place, by enduser
himself, is outside of copyright scope. Of course, according to
GFDL, user should not copy or distribute such stripped manual.
Reply to: