Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The goal of this part of the GFDL is to force their (non-free) dogma
> to be distributed along with their manuals (for various reasons of
> their own, which are no concern of ours). Value judgements on the
> content do not belong on debian-legal.
It's like you are *trying* to misunderstand me.
The goal I am speaking of is the goal is to make sure that everyone
who gets free software understands the rights they have and the
importance of free software. I believe this is a goal that Debian
> If their ultimate goal is to make sure everybody who gets free
> software understands what it is, then they're going about it
> completely the wrong way. Most people who get free software never read
> the manual.
You're saying two separate things here. I agree with both, but they
should be distinguished.
Yes, they are choosing a method of getting their goal which is a bad
But for the second, while most people may not read the manual, the
point isn't to *guarantee* that everyone "hears the message", the goal
is to *try*. Increasing the number of hearers is good, even if we
don't get to everyone.
> > Debian also
> > does an awful lot to try and make sure too.
> I haven't noticed any such attempts.
Really? Go look at the web page. Go look at all the people (myself
included) who would insist that the Debian Emacs manual should be just
like it is now, if only the license terms could be made free--that is,
to continue to distribute just the same political sections.
Look at /etc/motd on a Debian installation, which says:
"The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free software;
the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the
individual files in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright."
This is an attempt to make sure that the people who get the system
understand their rights and the importance of free software.