Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
On 2006-01-31 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode 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.
> Agreed entirely.
> It's sad, but true...
I am new to this list... I was thinking about it before and didn't know that
the debian people are trying to improve it. I knew about Open Source
Initiative and that they based the definition on debian's guidelines.
I would never dispraise FSF's work nor that of individual programmers.
But yes, we need some progress.
P.S.: Nice to meet you