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


On 2004-05-16 12:02:46 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@vsnl.net> wrote:

FSF  has  very valid  points  in  having  invariant sections,  because
invariant sections, as used by FSF  serve a very useful purpose. (I am
an  example  of  how  these  invariant  sections  introduce  -  rather
enlighten - people  about freedom.)

What did you read? Did you obtain it directly from FSF? Would it have been less or more enlightening if you had the freedom to edit it?

Maybe their aim is noble, but I believe their method is wrong. This seems to be a frequent problem, not just in free software, but in many walks of life. It is similar to the arguments over whether nuclear weapon proliferation causes peace (because everyone is too scared to attack each other) or danger (because there is more chance of a mistake). How far should we restrict people's freedom in order to promote freedom?

I am not sure this question is ever going to reach consensus, but I feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software in general. At least we seem to agree on programs, which is still something to be happy with.

I think your "sees" and "says" often misrepresent positions. It is better not to put too many words in people's mouths. It detracts from your generally thoughtful message.

RMS informed me when he was here (in January) that (1) he is not aware
of this  committee, (2) he sees  no problem with  the GFDL. Obviously,
the communication `gap' still persists.

This is worrying, but not insurmountable.

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing

Reply to: