Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 16:20]:
> > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> > > * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 13:50]:
> > > > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> 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
> reading.
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)
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: