[was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?

[Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>]

MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :

> On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong
> >> belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG.
> > I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I never stated such
> > belief. Am I the only one?
> 
> I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I did.  Add me to the OP
> (whose name you trimmed) and you have plural, so the statement is
> accurate.  What is the use of such hair-splitting?

We does not express only the plural but the consensus.

  "We \We\ (w[=e]), pron.; pl. of I. [Poss. Our (our) or Ours
   (ourz); obj. Us ([u^]s). See I.] [As. w[=e]; akin to OS.
   w[=i], OFries. & LG. wi, D. wij, G. wir, Icel. v[=e]r, Sw. &
   Dan. vi, Goth. weis, Skr. vayam. [root]190.]
   The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first
   person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing
   denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the
   subject of an action expressed by a verb."

 
> You are not the only one, but it looks very probable that you are in
> the minority.  You cannot impose your view on the majority, so why
> not look for constructive acts?

Please, can you point out a message sent by myself where I try "to
impose my view on the majority"?
My mail is an answer to someone that said that everybody thinks the
GFDL as non-free. Which is not accurate. Nothing else.

I'm not sure whether removing a manual because the author choose a
license that permit him to make a paragraph invariant (which does not
mean he will make really add an invariant paragraph) is really a
constructive act, if that's you're looking for. 

I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part in
documentation. As my main area of work is History, I'm familiar with
books -some kind of documentation- that I cannot change physically but
I still can use fully (read, understand... and so execute and modify,
by writing my own text, as there's no binary form involved here).

The freedom is not a goal but a meaning. You need to be free to do
what you want to. The freedom is not an end.

But we hit back the debate "is a software a book or not".

Regards,





-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english