Re: A possible GFDL compromise
> If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on their encrypted
> filesystem, we feel it is not suitable for them.
> > Not to mention the fact that many contributors to Debian (translators
> > for instance) are not considered officially as Debian developers,
> > which makes Debian voting system awkward, especially about
> > documentation.
> There hasn't been any general vote for that, there is probably no need
> for it.
Sure, you claim to be "we" including all Debian developers.
> 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?
> > So even a Debian developers's vote is probably not enough to make that
> > decision. Sure, normally Debian developers *should* understand what is
> > the best for Debian users but from what I rode on that list, it's not
> > sure at all for several of them.
> I believe the FSF is not in a situation where they can talk about the
> best for our users,
Does someone spoke for the FSF here? I do not think so. This sentence
is completely off-topic, we are not speaking about what the FSF may
Not a native english speaker: