On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:21 -0600, John C wrote: > > John Hasler wrote: > > John writes: > >> So I find it ironic (and a little absurd) that a disagreement over who's > >> more free than the other has resulted in Debian moving GNU documentation > >> into the non-free area in order to protect the freedom of DRM media to > >> restrict the rights of others. > > > > You aren't making any sense. > > I'm not?? > > Hummmm...It wouldn't be the first time, but let me simplify and > try again. :-) > > Debian says ... "The only path to truly free software is to > follow the DFSG - it's perfect." > > FSF say.... "The only path to truly free software is to follow > the GFDL - it's perfect." > > Many in the Free Software Movement consider Debian and Ubuntu to > be not "free" enough because they contain "non-free" software. > It's one of the prime reasons for the startup of gNewSense. > > Debian considers the FSF GFDL to be not "free" enough so > documentation that is GFDL is moved into the section of > distribution that the Free Software folks think should not even > be there.... Huh! > > You don't think that's ironic?? I certainly do. > > By the way several users have stated that it's not about DRM. > That may very well be true, but I have still not found anything > that confirmed that Debian has accepted and/or found that the DRM > restrictions did not apply. It could be that I read rapidly right > past that info, but my brain began to hurt again so I quit. Excuse me John C, Have you read the GFDL? Then compared it DFSG? I think not. Until you understand why those GFDL pieces deemed not acceptable are that way, please be quiet. Until you can see BOTH sides of an argument, you cannot win either side over, nor make a convincing statement for one side or the other. Please you are not making a good reputation, just one that complains. -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part