Re: A possible GFDL compromise
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: Josselin Mouette <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
- From: email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 04 Sep 2003 19:24:36 -0700
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <E19sQ1femail@example.com>
- References: <E19qiS9-0008GZ-8X@fencepost.gnu.org> <1061751997.6703.94.camel@yanagi> <E19rJ9Y-0003WJ-IW@fencepost.gnu.org> <1061831322.12825.30.camel@yanagi> <E19s3Mz-00054z-K8@fencepost.gnu.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E19sQ1femail@example.com>
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm not asking Debian to do anything for the GNU Project in regard to
> the GFDL. I have been presenting reasons why it is proper, and
> better, for Debian to accept GFDL-covered documents.
All evidence is that you have entirely ignored people who have
presented reasons why invariant sections are improper.
You have consistently refused to engage in a serious and sustained
conversation on the subject. This is your right, but when you
exercise it as you have, it is obstructive and hostile, and a serious
obstacle to reaching any kind of common arrangement.
I would invite you to start having a serious and sustained
conversation. Attempts to speak with you have failed: you quickly
declare that people are being mean, or that you don't have time.
Attempts to have you depute someone else to conduct the conversation
with the authority of the FSF have also been rebuffed.