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

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"



On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
>       But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then
>     yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
>     accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in
>     Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require.
> 
> Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
> sections were removable, nobody would remove them.  I guess not.

If they[1] did, they spoke erroneously. However, what they almost
surely said is that if the sections were DFSG Free, we would
(probably) not remove them, and it's likely that we wouldn't modify
them either.

> This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
> to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.

To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the
needs of the larger Free Software community.


Don Armstrong

1: Whoever they is. I know you draft your messages offline, but it
would be usefull if you could dig up a reference to where you are
basing these statements on from time to time. Otherwise it is
exceedingly difficult to understand where you are comming from.
-- 
Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be
running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to
repetitive music.

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpNZTgiKuxvm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: