Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the GFDL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian T. Sniffen" <email@example.com>
To: "Dylan Thurston" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the
> Dylan Thurston <email@example.com> writes:
> > On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political
> >> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while
> >> may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal,
> >> designed to deliver software rather than political speech.
> > Sure, that's a nice analysis. What do you propose to do about it?
> > Debian would be quite happy to distribute modifiable political speech
> > (with suitable provisions for protecting the author's integrity), but
> > the FSF has not shown any interest in considering that possibility;
> > and most DDs posting here seem quite firm in the view that
> > unmodifiable political speech is not allowed.
> Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political
> text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original
> words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of
> Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-text. I think RMS fear that
> we would somehow change his essays is severely unfounded.
> Additionally, his argument is misleading in ways which prevent
> counterargument: there's no way we could change his essays. We might
> derive works from his essays, though it is unlikely they would be
> noticeably similar to his essays.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact