Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
>
>> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
>
> Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
There was a rather heated debate at the time, I recall.
> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
> changes?"
As someone who carefully read and then voted for the changes, I was
rather taken aback by the (unforeseen, by myself and many others)
implications of the changes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it
"deception", however; the text of the changes was quite clear. After
considering it carefully, I would still have voted the same way, and
hence I voted to keep the changes in the second vote.
Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not
the changes were "editorial" or not. Whether it was or was not, it's
now over and done with. This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue.
I'm still not entirely convinced that all documentation needs the same
set of freedoms as programs. But the intersection of the freedoms we
require of "documentation", and the freedoms we require of "programs"
gives us a very large common set of freedoms, with just one or two
considerations which might be specific to one or the other. Given the
huge problems of defining what is and is not "documentation" or
"programs", I'm still of the opinion that we should require and uphold
the same set of freedoms of both, which obviously includes the ability
to modify without restrictions on what is modifiable.
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Attachment:
pgpTqP1IUz5GI.pgp
Description: PGP signature