Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> > The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even
> > exists.
>
> The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program
> freedom.
And documentation.
Basically the other things sitting a computer are not part of the OS.
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
> >> and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word.
> >> From what you say, "logiciel" appears fine for their purpose. >
> >> > It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in
> >> France. I > > think that emcumbering it with your view described
> >> at the end of this > > message would not be helpful at all.
>
> That view is not a requirement for support of free software.
I agree.
> > Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts
> > in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not
> > specifically computing related.
>
> This does not invalidate the reasoning for the software form. I
> believe that it can be generalised, but it is not necessary to believe
> that.
I think it's necessary to believe that. Why typing a text on a
computer should change the freedom given? A free software code printed
on a paper should be free software, even if it's not "software"...
> [I advocate free works in all media] > This view clearly have an
> influence on your usage of the word software > in the Debian case.
>
> Like hell. My school computing lessons have a larger influence.
In this debate, I mean.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: