Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-21 14:29:54 +0100 Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The DFSG explicitly
> codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20
It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word
Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning TeX by name.
Please state your preferred definition of "explicit"[*]. It would
seem that section 4 requires deduction that TeX is being considered.
That is, it is left to implication, is implicit.
The GFDL is free according to our standards.
I do not believe the FDL is free software according to your standards.
I am annoyed that FDL supporters continue to waste time by pouncing
on every piece of imprecise language from someone with the consensus
view. I hope that FDL fans will see from above how annoying it is.
[*] This was just making the point below. Please, if you must state
your preferred definition, do it off-list.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/