On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers > > > argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and > > > even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting > > > the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you > > > are doing. > > > > Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some > > situation. > > By "on this list", you mean people that subscribed to this list?
"On this list" could also mean people who just pop in for the GFDL discussions, since I have no way of knowing if they're subscribed. > If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the > GFDL non-free. I was not attempting to assert that by subscribing one automatically has a certain mindset; if that's what people think I meant, let me correct that right now. I used the term "virtually" because I realize that people (like you, perhaps) might disagree with the opinion of what appears to be the sweeping majority (at least that's what I see, by those who speak up; if you don't speak up, I don't know your opinion; I can't read minds) of people on this list. I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. The case might be that people who disagree with the statement "the GFDL is non-free" might not be saying anything and they might actually constitute the majority. I feel this an unlikely possibility, though. -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams
pgpRCsZxtCE3I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
