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


On 2004-05-07 15:53:17 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@vsnl.net> wrote:

MJ Ray said on Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100,:
doc-advocacy package suggestion; hope this is resolved.
A good idea. `doc-semifree' would be better though.

I think you missed my point. I suggest producing our own DFSG-free advocacy documents.

I did  not ask whether  an edited version  would have been  more or
less enlightening, but whether an editable version would have been.
For  a newbie,  the issue  is not  relevant. What  is relevant  is the
message one gets. And first impressions really do count.

Indeed. People getting this documentation at present seem to get the false impressions that invariant sections in software are acceptable, or that some software is not software. These are both bad messages to include with a good message for free software.

I think it is fair to decide whether I think their method is right,
As I said, it is not a  issue of `right' V. `wrong'. [...]

As I said, I think it is fair to see this as such an issue.

After  the Gosling-EMACS  experience, [...]
we really  cannot trust people to
ensure that they pass along the messages we want to convey.

Oh yes, clearly Debian should not be given a particular freedom because Gosling acted poorly(!)

But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*,
an attitude I disagree  with. (but the, I am not a  DD). [...]

You are personifying debian. Stop it. It hates that.

Some debian developers are interested in promoting a message about free software. For me, that message *does not override* the commitment to provide only free software. I also resent FSF's mistrust of me. I now do not trust them to send out a good message about free software, because they are willing to advocate non-free-software licences. I think that reduces the clarity of FSF's presentation of freedom, at best.

If we fail to
convey the concept of freedom, people (particularly the newbies) might
not get the point.

I agree entirely with this, which is why I suggested doc-advocacy.

And if the GFDL is not  modified adequately, it will be appropriate to
have  a  separate  section  for semi-free  documentation.

We already have a separate section in the archive for semi-free things. It's called "non-free".

I am quite happy if someone tries to take my words and use them for
another end. (Hell, they have in the past!)
Most people would be unhappy when their *political* words are twisted.
The  problem  arises  when  political  speech  gets  intertwined  with
technical documentation.

Fine, then don't expect your political words to be carried by debian, because you do not produce them in free software. I think that is a mistake and I have tried to explain why, but it's your mistake to make.

I feel I have nothing to  fear from open debate and people deciding
for themselves.
But you  overlook the  possibility of people  being misled  by twisted
words. [...]

No, I do not. I am merely undeterred by them.

Consequences  of a misrepresented opinion are  worse than that
of malicious code inserted (mis)using liberty granted by the GPL.

I think this compares apples and cheeses. Both can be totally destructive.

Which  is  why  documentation   should  be  treated  differently  from
programs.   And  precisely  why  GFDL assigns  `invariant'  status  to
*Secondary* Sections alone.

We have already seen cases of people attempting to call primary sections secondary so that they may be invariant.

Has the "GNU project encyclopaedia" problem ever been adequately dealt with? This is the idea that you cannot incorporate a work with the "Invariant GNU Manifesto" into an encyclopedia of the GNU project because the manifesto is no longer secondary, so cannot be invariant. I remember some answers that this is a silly book to want to produce if you are not FSF (who hold the copyright and can do as they please), but that's not usually the licensor's choice in a free licence.

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

Reply to: