On 2004-01-30 04:56:11 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
>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.
Rereading, the cause may that you didn't actually write the end of the
sentence. Free enough for what? I assumed Debian, but it seems I was
wrong.
In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...]
] rejecting software
] licenses that we consider free
This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of
interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of some where
debian-legal has no consensus.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
