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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On 2003-09-21 14:29:54 +0100 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.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 'TeX' in
    the DFSG.
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/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: