Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license
> that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG.
True, that is what he said, so I guess my comment was off-point. Of course,
everyone agrees that we should adhere to the spirit of the DFSG -- the people
who consider the GFDL non-free are perhaps the most ardent advocates of this.
We tend to believe that for a license to be Free, it must not impose any
restrictions, intentional or unintentional, which are contrary to the spirit
of the DFSG.
Simply claiming that something adheres to the spirit of the DFSG doesn't make
it true. I believe that my description of the arguments of the people who
want to ignore the problems with the text of the GFDL remains accurate: they
want to look at the spirit of the license rather the actual text. It's a
tenable position, though I don't agree with it.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html
Reply to: