On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > > 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. > > It serves the free software community by resisting the > counterproductive efforts of well-meaning but dogmatic Debian > developers. I guess it seems odd to me to hearing someone like yourself who believes strongly in Freedom to call others who believe as strongly (or even more so) in Freedom "dogmatic". Dogmatic or not, Freedom is very important to us. You may call efforts to assure our freedoms counterproductive, as I would guess many of your peers and/or supervisors at MIT called your efforts to establish GNU and the FSF counterproductive. I, for one, don't think that working to increase or maintain freedom is ever counterproductive. Looking forward, I sincerely hope that the FSF and GNU will consider drafting amendments to the GFDL that will remove the issues that hinder it from acceptance into Debian. Can you enlighten us on how such a process would work in the FSF and/or GNU? If that doesn't happen, your only recourse (assuming you would like GFDL documents in Debian) is to find a Debian Developer willing to work with you to draft and propose on -project a GR to modify our foundation documents to allow for licenses along the lines of the GFDL into Debian. I'm not personally aware of a DD who feels that we should consider licenses like the GFDL separately from the DFSG, but I assume there are a few out there. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpB2HeYwTJZv.pgp
Description: PGP signature