Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030909 16:20]:
> > Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > > * Mathieu Roy (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030909 13:50]:
> > > > Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > > > > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> > > > > equally to GFDL.
> > > > Name one.
> > > qmail.
> > Unfortunately, you are wrong.
> > I'll just give the most obvious reason:
> > For a GFDL documentation, you do not need the author approval to
> > distribute modified versions.
> qmail allowes to be transfered over ssh, GFDLed docu not. I said
> "equally", not "exactly same license" on purpose. Please start
So basically you're still debating with the "encrypted issue" that we
already know it will be fixed if the issue is confirmed by lawyers
from the FSF?
So basically, you're opposing a potential technical problem to a
confirmed philosophical problem?
(ps: please, use the word "equally" only when you have decent
evidences of equality, it will help to be able to communicate)
Not a native english speaker: