On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> >RMS has done more for free software than you have, and hethinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why doI don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered works are free software. Has he expressed an opinion on that, or are you using telepathic devices?you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's?I don't think I ever claimed he did. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like me to have said.
Rereading, the cause may that you didn't actually write the end of the sentence. Free enough for what? I assumed Debian, but it seems I was wrong.
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...] ] rejecting software ] licenses that we consider free
This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of some where debian-legal has no consensus.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/