On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:32:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > One of the most blatent examples of this logical flaw is that a system > > of ethics which prohibits us from distributing any of non-free would > > have us not distribute GFDL licensed documentation.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:57:46AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Where's the flaw in that? We probably *are* going to chuck GFDL > licensed documents because they're non-free (that's next on the list > of things to tackle when the question of whether or not non-free gets > dropped entirely is settled). Seems perfectly consistent to me. If we chuck non-free, of course we would. The flaw, there, is that we do not appear to have any sort of consistent rational basis for deciding this way. Nothing anyone is willing to tell me about, anyways. [Why wouldn't we distribute GFDL? Because distributing it violates GNU principles! Because it hurts users! Because it violates Debian traditions! Because drugs are unethical! Because we would be the first! Because...] If we do not discard all of non-free, wouldn't we simply distribute GFDL documents in non-free? For example, is there some legal reason why we should not? Have the authors asked us not to? -- Raul
