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

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:32:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> writes:
> > There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
> > every document non-free or only those that include invariant
> > sections.
> Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation
> license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do
> not contain essential material.
> However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is
> non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as
> a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully,
> after the "software is documentation" dogma).

I assume you're referring to this[1].

The poll was worded carefully, yes, but anyone who thought I was
cleverly manipulating them could have simply marked the option:

  None of the above statements approximates my opinion.

Only 2 out of 63 respondents selected that option.

Your accusation of manipulation suggests to me that your message is far
from objective.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html

G. Branden Robinson                |      To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      cultivation of the ability to
branden@debian.org                 |      unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: