On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 21:48, Bruce Perens wrote: > What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions > and this could not take less than months.
As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want invarient sections. As a matter of principle, Debian does not consider them free software. Neither organization is willing to disregard its principles. RMS has said he's looking into some of our other problems with the GFDL, in particular the "anti-DRM" section. Bruce, I'm honestly not clear what there is left to discuss. I hope that we (Debian) can some day consider "GFDL without invariant sections, front or back cover texts, dedications, etc." a free software license; and I think making it that way follows both parties principles. Beyond that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you think that the Social Contract might be changed to give different freeness guidelines for software other than executable programs?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
