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

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF [Was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal]

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 21:48, Bruce Perens wrote:
> What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
> and this could not take less than months.

As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want invarient
sections. As a matter of principle, Debian does not consider them free
software. Neither organization is willing to disregard its principles.

RMS has said he's looking into some of our other problems with the GFDL,
in particular the "anti-DRM" section.

Bruce, I'm honestly not clear what there is left to discuss. I hope that
we (Debian) can some day consider "GFDL without invariant sections,
front or back cover texts, dedications, etc." a free software license;
and I think making it that way follows both parties principles. Beyond
that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless you think that the Social Contract might be changed to give
different freeness guidelines for software other than executable

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

Reply to: