[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :

> It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street.
> This is the standard that applies to both sides.  Are there questions
> you think Debian hasn't answered?  Has Debian announced that it will
> ignore whatever you say because you have been cruel and dismissive
> towards us?  Nope, we're still here.

By reading Richard, I did not understood that he will ignore whatever
*some-people* say because they have been cruel and aggressive. I
understood that he will ignore whatever *some-people* say until they
stop to be cruel and aggressive.

Did I miss the point? Maybe.

Anyway, this kind of debate (about how someone is good or bad) is
usually endless and sterile.

I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent
questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction?

Which question is left? How the invariant section may not be
free-software according the DFSG but free-documentation according to
the GNU project? Well, I'm not sure it's possible to find a way out of
this problem.

As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are
distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it
be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG
documentation', which would be distributed by GNU and 'not considered as
part of Debian'? 

It would allow users (something that Debian cares about) that do not
want 'non-free software' at all but accept 'free-documentation as
defined by the GNU project' to be able to use apt-get easily, easier
than if 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' was mixed
with 'non-free software'.

I speak in my name only (it should be obvious, but I know this is
not for everybody).

Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: