Re: GFDL
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> If the whole document would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
> remove political statements.
>
> According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
> circumstances be considered DFSG-free,
It *might* be possible to construct something which meets your
definition of non-modifiable and yet is patchable enough to meet the
DFSG. I don't think this is a good idea, but it might be the only way
to keep the current Emacs etc. manuals in Debian.
> so it would have to be removed
> from the manual. Others have (it appears) said the same thing.
But yes, the original poster, when he said "If the whole docu would be
DFSG-free" meant that if the Emacs manual were distributed under any
Free Software license -- for example the GNU GPL -- Debian would
happily distribute it with political statements intact.
> Having seen a lot of rigid dogmatism here recently, I can hardly
> expect Debian not to be rigidly dogmatic on this issue too.
This discussion has been neither rigid nor dogmatic: Debian has a
clearly documented procedure for changing its policies, and you have
been invited to initiate it. We have often explained our reasoning to
you and other GNU members who asked. We have asked for your reasoning
and been rebuffed.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: