On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 +0000 Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he > >thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do > >you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's? > I don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered works are free > software. Has he expressed an opinion on that, or are you using > telepathic devices?
I don't think I ever claimed he did. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like me to have said. In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: ] There is no disconnect between our purpose and our methods. Our ] licenses grant the freedoms that we are fighting for. We are ] following the purposes and criteria we developed in the 80s. ] ] Lately Debian has interpreted the DFSG in a way that is substantially ] more strict than our criteria of free software, rejecting software ] licenses that we consider free, totally aside from documentation ] licenses such as the GFDL. If there is a disconnect, it is between ] our methods (and purposes) and Debian's. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00702.html Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
