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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > "olive" <olive.lin@versateladsl.be> wrote:
> > >  I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
> > there were in accordance to the FSF.
> >
> > I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
> > software if they operated in accordance with Debian.  Debian-legal has proved
> > better at guaranteeing the FSF's 'four freedoms' in practice than RMS, what
> > with the GFDL and all.
> >
> > Let's face it: the FSF didn't create a full free-software system.  Debian did.
> > The FSF didn't even create the majority of the GNU project tools.  Volunteers
> > did, and many of them *disagree* with the FSF leadership.  Discussions of the
> > merits of FSF policy are forbidden on FSF mailing lists, with the exception
> > of a few which appear to go to /dev/null.
> >
> > The FSF is, bizarrely, a top-down autocratic organization, with all the flaws
> > that implies.  Debian isn't, with all the benefits and flaws that implies.
> Let's face it: Debian wouldn't exist without the FSF.

Maybe not.  Neither would a lot of other things.  That's a strawman that
doesn't change where things are today.  The FSF deserves respect for their
part in getting us here, but not so much that they're exempt from critical

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: