Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
true.
I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is "free enough"
for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules
but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of
GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve
freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion
Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL
meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly,
you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the
DFSG and does so.
So why was option 2 included on the survey anyway, if all you're going to do is
tell people who voted for option 2 that they're wrong?
-- Keith
