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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:18, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote:

Your problem is here. Quote more carefully next time.

> >> 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-annou=
> > nce-200308/msg00017.html
> >>=20
> >> 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...

... which is not who I was responding to...

>  asked above.

You managed to cut the fact that I was addressing Florian Weimer, and
not RMS.

> > 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.

Right. But Florian Weimer was claiming that the ballot was biased, when
in fact it was merely establishing a necessary, much-requested, official
opinion on the status of the FDL wrt to the DFSG.

Please, read your email more carefully.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: