Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.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-annou=
>> No, the question was (carefully?) biased, ruling out several options.
> Several options that are irrelevant to the question of whether or not
> the GFDL is DFSG-free. We've been over this many times.
...which is not what RMS asked above.
> debian-legal clearly believes that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.
> Passing the DFSG is the *only* way anything can get into Debian. If you
> want something else to get into Debian, you need to propose definitions
> or guidelines on -project as a GR.
Right. So RMS is asking for anyone who supports such a GR to e-mail him.
I agree with Thomas Bushnell that this is a rude thing for him to ask,