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


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
> small.

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 <mako@debian.org>,
who was a member of the committee on Debian's side.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: