On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:32:46PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> For the FSF, freedom is the message, and has to be conveyed. FSF's
> invariant clauses speak of free software and how users' rights are
> affected by software. FSF is not, should not (and justifiably so)
> concerned with, or can control what other people who use the GFDL (NOT
> FSF's GFDL'd work) put in their invariant clauses. FSF rarely puts
> technical info in invariant clauses. Its invariant clauses are very
If they're not concerned with other people's use of the license, then
they should use it but not advocate it.
However, they *are* advocating its use, and therefore to not be concerned
with its misuse would be extremely irresponsible.
> 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.
You might want to pass that on to Benj. Mako Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
who was a member of the committee on Debian's side.
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <email@example.com>