Leo Famulari (2016-08-13 16:18 +0300) wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:00:42PM +0200, David Craven wrote: >> Can you please explain why you don't feel competent? It's written in plain >> English, not AES encrypted English, so I have difficulty understanding >> why people think they can't read it and form an opinion about it (not this >> issue in particular, but more general any issue that comes up), and I don't >> just mean you either, but a few people have said this... > > Personally, after having read it the first time, I wouldn't have > expected web browsers to be excluded from a free distribution due to > their recommendation of non-free "add-ons". I don't disagree with this > interpretation; it simply would not have occurred to me. It requires > some imagination and some time thinking about the issues and the > particularities of the software we use. > > So, I think the language of the text and its interpretation are actually > not obvious. And in this case, the point of the patch in question can be > achieved by another method, so I personally didn't want to spend time > interpreting the FSDG when I could spend it on something else.
Oof, thanks for this message! I have a similar point. I always find it hard to read and understand such (long and boring) guidelines, licenses, etc. I realize they are important, but I just don't like to spend my time on them. TBH I stopped reading after "These guidelines are not complete" phrase :-) -- Alex
