----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dylan Thurston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:47 PM Subject: Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the GFDL
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech > >> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it > >> may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was > >> designed to deliver software rather than political speech. > > > > Sure, that's a nice analysis. What do you propose to do about it? > > Debian would be quite happy to distribute modifiable political speech > > (with suitable provisions for protecting the author's integrity), but > > the FSF has not shown any interest in considering that possibility; > > and most DDs posting here seem quite firm in the view that > > unmodifiable political speech is not allowed. > > Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political > text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original > words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of > Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-text. I think RMS fear that > we would somehow change his essays is severely unfounded. > Additionally, his argument is misleading in ways which prevent > counterargument: there's no way we could change his essays. We might > derive works from his essays, though it is unlikely they would be > noticeably similar to his essays. > > -Brian > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ================================ http://www.3x4.net
