Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> That's one way to interpret it, but I don't think it is the best way.
> The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and
> contains nothing else. But there surely was never an intention to
> develop a system that didn't have manuals and essays and licenses in
> it. I think that this was an error of thinking at the time.
Perhaps so---but the intention *was* to have the same rules apply to
all those things.
> I started discussing this issue here because I thought that Debian
> developers were still making up their minds on the issue. I am not
> presenting a demand, just a proposal. I don't want to nag, and if
> Debian developers are not interested in what I have to say, I will let
> the issue drop.
You seem entirely unwilling to consider any proposals that Debian has
made to the FSF. Why should we listen to your proposals if you are
unwilling to listen to ours?
Reply to: