Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
> >You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
> >arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
> >you think the DFSG should mean.
> As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
> opinion in contradiction with yours will be "poorly defended". Some of
Nope. I've had lots of debates with others on this list where the
other person's position was well-defended. This is not one of them.
As a case in point, you still havn't responded to Don's message which,
as noted above, you elided wholesale, and still havn't replied to.
> I was reading the page "http://www.debian.org/intro/free";; it basically
> says that "free software" is about the same as "open source software"
> and "free software" is linked to the definition of free given by the GNU
> project! This page seems to says that the DFSG is a mean to precize the
> definition of Free given by the GNU project. I think this was probably
> the case at the beginning of Debian but now this page seems terribly
> misleading.
In the case of documentation, sure: the FSF's notions of Free Documentation
have diverged from Debian's. Debian feels that documentation should be
held to the same standards of freedom as programs, and the FSF does not.
Feel free to lobby to have that page changed, if you feel it necessary,
but refrain from trying to use it as a stick to beat Debian with.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: