On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote: > That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether > they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they > are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally > not the case, I will stop discussing the issue here. I am not interested > in beating a dead horse. > From this can we assume that your position is as follows:
1) You are willing to try and convince Debian that the GFDL is either DFSG free, or that the DFSG need not apply to certain aspects of the GFDL. 2) You are unwilling to modify the GFDL, for example by allowing the removal of Invariant sections if the document title was changed, to ensure the licence is DFSG free in the eyes of Debian. If I've misinterpreted, could you indicate in what ways you would be willing to discuss modification of the GFDL to accommodate those with a strict reading of the DFSG? I'm also somewhat assuming that your position and the FSF's position are the same; if this is not the case, is there anyone else at the FSF who would be willing to "join in"? Many thanks in advance, Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
