Re: GFDL

[MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>]

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.

--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing