On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:28, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit : > >> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of > >> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the > >> software package can be modified before it will be delivered to user. > >> Distributor have more control of the package contents in this case. So > >> FDL shifts control over specific parts of the documentation to software > >> author. > > >Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software > >folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ? > > No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free > software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free > software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of > course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about > the freedom of _users_ and _authors_.
No, free software is about freedom for *everyone*, regardless of stupid labels *you* invent. I'm a "user", "author", and "distributor"; do I only need 1/3rd as much freedom as a normal user? I sure hope not. > It is in the best interest of users to receive unstripped version of > manual. It is also in the best interest of users to recieve a manual they can use, modify, and distribute, like they want, provided they prevent no one else from doing so. > It is also in the best interest of authors. Except the GFDL takes freedom away from authors. What it *adds* is not freedom, but control - the original author of the document is exercising control over all subsequent authors and users. > Interest of distributor is non-issue. So go start your own undistributable GNU/Linux distribution. As a distributor, Debian doesn't consider our interest a non-issue. Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's fix that. *plonk* -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
