Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Lukas Geyer <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > > And that's how the FSF and the GNU project produce non-free
> > > documentation, is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, the freedom criteria only
> > > applies to software released as software, not software embedded in
> > > documentation.
> > Yes, you forgot that there are several definitions of freedom around.
> Yes, of course, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush both defended the
> freedom of the Iraqi people, they just had different definitions. Do
> you think we should not judge on those different definitions?
We can have a definition on your own. The definition of freedom shared
by most people seems different that Bush's and Hussein's ones ; sure.
> I think Debian has been quite open to criticism from outside,
> contrary to the FSF's total ignorance of all the comments on the
> GFDL when it was drafted. The discussion seems to have come to the
> core issue now, and it is that Debian's definition of freedom is
> stricter than that of the FSF.
> > > Submit bugs where our policies are not being followed, yes. Tell us
> > > they are inconsistent, no. Not before the GFDL problem is fixed.
> > Your policies are also mine, as I'm a Debian applicant and a Debian
> > user. And at this point I think that some parts of the policy are not
> > as clear one may think at start.
> Which parts are unclear? You seem to be dragging this out and trying
> to pretend the issue is still unclear.
Which is not clear is the fact that Debian developers admit that at
some point they need to make, themselves, software less free than the
DSFG would accept, they seems to find the fact that they make software
non-DFSG compliant totally acceptable when working for Debian... and
they just says that the problem is the inclusion in main.
If we are about to consider that a non-free logo is completely
harmless, what is the problem of including it? If we do not use and
include proprietary software, it's because we consider that harmful,
Not a native english speaker: