Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-09-18 01:43:22 +0100 Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:
I am sorry. As I already said, I just can't explain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between "free as speech" and "free as
beer", I have not any cure to help you.
One more time, as plainly as can be: I know the difference between
those meanings of freedom. I have not seen you provide any references
or citations where "Robinson, Nerode and other[s]" use free/gratis as
a reason for the FDL not fulfilling DFSG. Do you have any?
If you still cannot understand what is being asked, I do not know how
to help you more.
Therefore, according to FSD, free license may disallow a
distribution of modification, which clearly can't be improvement, or
restrict some ways for [useful] modification, if there obviously
more than one way to do it.
This conclusion does not follow, as far as I can tell. Please
explain your reasoning more clearly.
_My_ reasoning? I am not have any reasoning about that. I
just quote a FSD. Some more quotes below:
You either have some reasoning to link your quote from the FSD to your
conclusion, or you are totally ignorant of the meaning of "therefore".
Because you claim not to have any reasoning, I conclude that you are
ignorant and were just making random statements that have no link to
the FSD. This line is not worthy of further debate. (When faced with
the insane, humour it.)
There may be a number of reasons to not call
"software" a printed EMACS manual in the bookstore.
I am not aware of anyone claiming it to be so.
Or even the same
manual written on the CD.
Even if this were true (and it is not), the manual would not be in
Debian, as Debian may only contain software. The consensus of this
list about FDL-covered works would be correct for a different reason
to the one given. I am surprised that you think it worth arguing so
long and hard over a difference that does not change the result.
I believe that [suspected] incompliance
with FSF philosophy is not one of these reasons.
No, it has been pointed out that the FSF can keep its position
consistent by misdefining "software". I am a little surprised that
I've not seen mention of this before.
Contrary to a
"random accusations" (as you brilliantly say) of free beer zealots,
FSF philosophy carefully crafted and well documented.
You are yet to show the presence of "free beer zealots".
If only the reasoning behind FDL were well-documented, there might be
fewer problems during this debate. Hopefully the FSF will remedy that
soon.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: