Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>> Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
>> > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
>> > The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.
>> You are criticizing Debian based on things you can imagine we might
>> do, and have imagined no end of nasty possibilities. When we tell you
>> they are false, you just continue saying them.
> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
doing so -- provide citations of a non-Developer saying so and I'll
downgrade you to "mistaken".
What I *have* seen is assertions that removable-but-not-modifiable
text should be removed, as it is not DFSG-free.
> - But even if Debian do not drop the GNU
> political/philosophical/... texts from the packages, what will do
> the other distro, way more popular than Debian, which does not
> even recognize the collection of software they ship as GNU/Linux?
What distribution is more popular than Debian? I thought Debian was
the largest in most markets of interest... but I wouldn't worry about
Red Hat, if I were you. I'd worry about Microsoft. Gosh, they might
distribute the Emacs manual without including RMS' political essays.
They could use it to document... wait, they'd be distributing Emacs,
and making the GPL available to users, and a dozen news organizations
would report that Microsoft was distributing Free Software and link to
the FSF web site. What's the problem, again?
Brian T. Sniffen email@example.com
- Re: GFDL
- From: Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru>