Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:
Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
more so you menyioned it below.
Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
trying to insult me.
I am aware what is meant by "free beer" but my question is this (and I
think I was clear before):
I do not see anything to link "Robinson, Nerode and other[s]" to the
views you claim are theirs. They seem to object to invariant sections
in Debian because they are a restriction of freedom. They have not
mentioned cost as a direct factor. Calling them "free beer zealots"
because of that would be absurd, so you must be referring to something
else. What is that?
Alternatively, are you just making random accusations to divert
attention from something else?
I am sorry that English is not the best language for you. I can offer
to use Esperanto, but that cannot take place on this list. That is
not my choice, but debian lists code of conduct.
Therefore, you can talk about DFSG-compliance as
representatives of Debian Project. Or you can talk about your
perception of free software on your own. But, IMNSHO, it will be
dishonest to talk as representatives of Debian Project, but founding
only upon your personal perception of free software.
I try my hardest not to purport to be a representative of the project
and most of the time my signature reminds people of that. I am not
aware of having claimed to be representative of the project and again
I wonder how your writing is relevant to the subject here.
Please note, one of differences between DFSG and FSD is that
latter does not require possiblity of arbitrary modification of
work, but only "freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits".
Please note the extensive explanation of that term on the FSF web site
and that they only consider it valid to apply the freedoms to programs
rather than all software. That is a difference of opinion and not
necessarily a difference between how DFSG and FSD would apply to a
Therefore, according to FSD, free license may disallow a
distribution of modification, which clearly can't be improvement, or
restrict some ways for [useful] modification, if there obviously
more than one way to do it.
This conclusion does not follow, as far as I can tell. Please explain
your reasoning more clearly.
According to most popular (however,
IMHO, incoherent) interpretation of DFSG, it may not. For example
GFDL will be free according the FSD. Do you still think that FSD is
better definition of Free Software? :-)
If it were acceptable to apply FSD to FDL, I cannot see how it would
be regarded as free software. FSF say that such an attempt to apply
it is not sensible, rather than FDL is free software.
I do not see what this (flawed IMO) deduction has to do with how it is
fair to describe two debian developers as "free beer zealots". Please
explain or cease.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/