Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
>     > difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
>     > consequences.
> 
>     Um, yes it does.  Importantly, it allows for more flexible
>     distribution strategies.
> 
> They allow the same distribution strategies.  In a previous message, I
> explained why there is no practical difference.

There *is* a practical difference.  For example, when I distribute a
set of GPL'd works, it suffices to send one copy of the GPL.  When I
distribute a set of GFDL'd manuals, I must distribute many copies of
many invariant sections.  The GPL has a simple and easy limit on the
amount of "extra" stuff; the GFDL invites people to add endless extra
stuff.

You have previously derided this problem as being merely a "practical
inconvenience"; now you say that it's not even a "practical
difference".  

I think Debian folks understand what you are trying to accomplish with
the GFDL, and are sympathetic with the goal, but we find the methods
used to be disturbing and worrisome.

Do you understand why Debian objects?  Do you sympathize with our
goal?  Or do you just think we are blind fools?  Or is there some
middle alternative, between understanding us and thinking we're fools?  

I think much would be helped if you could try and understand *why* we
have the problem we do.