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

Re: Unidentified subject!

Brian C <brian@rurnt.com> wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
> > GFDL-covered manuals.  The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accept it.
> As one of those more inclined to listen to the rationale behind the
> GFDL, and as one who still leaves open the possibility that the
> DFSG might allow for something very much like the GFDL, I
> certainly hope that you do not intend the above to be an exhaustive
> list of the arguments in favor of including GFDL-licensed manuals
> in Debian. The arguments appear to be:
> 1) There are many GFDL manuals.
> 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
> Obviously Debian (and the FSF) would not accept such arguments in
> other contexts. For instance, one would not make much headway in
> either circle regarding the inclusion of proprietary software by
> arguing either of:
> 1) There are many proprietary software programs.
> 2) The many proprietary software programs would be useful to
> include.

I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.

> Part of such a demonstration might include an explanation of
> the many tough decisions that the FSF had to make when drafting
> the GFDL, and the rationales behind each part. With a greater
> understanding of these tough issues, Debian developers might
> say, "Wow. They're right. That is a tough issue to deal with
> and we cannot think of any better way to write a license to
> deal with that problem. Hmmm, perhaps the GFDL is as free as
> we can get regarding this issue."

Which brings us back to:

:    The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems to be "this is the
:    only way we can get our message out".
This is the only reason we were given so far as to why important
freedoms must be given up in the GFDL.   I for one don't believe that
method of getting the message out to be consistent with the message (of
freedom) itself.  So I cannot be convinced to give up the freedom and
still call the license free.

I don't feel we are making _any_ progress.  We should simply agree to
disagree.  Debian appears to believe in stronger freedom than the FSF.


Reply to: