>> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff. But >> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it? > >Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream >yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral >and hypocritical and inconsistent, and insisting they do what we want, >or face the consequences. Yay. I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion for an entirely different reason. I've seen the FSF * asking for comments, and then ignoring them without responding to them * not replying to requests for clarification * not replying to requests for explanations of the motivation behind certain clauses * responding to attempted discussions of license issues with "This is off-topic." * responding to requests to explain where it's on-topic with silence * responding to suggestions for possible license changes with "This is none of your business" (rather than reasons why the change is a bad idea) * responding to freeness issues with "That's just theoretical." * responding to practical problems with "That's merely a practical problem, not a freeness issue, so you should ignore it." * responding to practical problems which are freeness issues with "That's not important." * responding to explanations of why they're important with "I don't care." or "I don't believe you." * declaring that GFDL license issues were *all* going to be ignored until GPL v. 3 was released, regardless of anything else * refusing to give a contact point for discussions of possible license modifications * keeping their future potential license changes top-secret, not available to anyone
Who precisely was preventing reasonable discussion here? Well, the FSF, in my opinion. >> Personally, I have removed all the non-free documentation packages from my >> system. And I used some of them before. (I admit, I still read a few of >> them on the web when I have to.) > >Out of curiousity, why do you think it's better to read non-free stuff >on the web than to install it on your computer? The only practical >differences are ones that hurt you; are you just irrational, or does >your double standard have some hidden benefits? I know which ones are non-free and remind myself (a) to create replacements for them (b) not to volunteer patches or modifications for them, because I don't like to do free work unless it can be released freely Does that qualify as a hidden benefit? That is precisely the practical difference -- the ability to tell easily which is which. Currently it's an *ing pain, so I've mostly stopped making documentation patches at all. I found that a number of packages didn't include the documentation license in the copyright file (which is still a serious bug, right?), but I got sick of going through all of them looking for more. I've also found that I never need to use the vast majority of the doc packages. The autoconf manual is essentially the only exception. I guess I occasionally use parts of the glibc doc, but only the parts specifying prototypes for POSIX functions, which are available elsewhere. >> >Or are you only willing to stand up for your opinion when it will be >> >seen in an entirely adoring light? >> I think I just answered that question. :-) > >What, with a "yes"? No, with a "no". Now, see, that's a *gratuitous* insult. (And I admit I've made a few myself; sorry.)
