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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > "olive" <email@example.com> 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