[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[RMS and Walter Landry omitted from CC list]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:17:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:
> > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
> >> (without expecting it to change) in Debian, please write to me and
> >> tell me.  (I am not subscribed to debian-legal and could not handle
> >> the volume of mail.)  But before you send it, please see if I have
> >> sent a further message to debian-legal saying "enough!"
> >
> > Your question has already been posed, and the answer is found here
> >
> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html
> No, the question was (carefully?) biased, ruling out several options.

If your thesis is true, we'd expect to have seen many more votes for
option 4 ("none of the above").  Only 2 of the 63 votes counted (3.17%)
selected that option.

If you think the ballot was biased, perhaps you should support your
argument by identifying the premises that you think were illegitimate.

G. Branden Robinson                |       The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       Baptist: It ain't a sin if you
branden@debian.org                 |       don't get caught.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       -- Anthony Davidson

Attachment: pgpHYHQmgxFnx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: