On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:23:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> > process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> > Debian distribution is unambiguous
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:49:45PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJT wrote:
> >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
> >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
> Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:23:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> > process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> > Debian distribution is unambiguous
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:49:45PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJT wrote:
> >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
> >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
> Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:46:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK, fine, you've convinced me of the historic level of hypocrisy
> and wilful Social Contract violation in Debian.
A couple notes are in order here:
[1] You've not backed up your assertion with any reasoning.
[2] The problem wit
> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free
> > license.
> >
> > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one
> > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote
>> 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
AJT wrote:
>BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
>Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
AJ quoth:
>> >Well,
>> >the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>> >decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>> >by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
>> Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not t
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:46:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK, fine, you've convinced me of the historic level of hypocrisy
> and wilful Social Contract violation in Debian.
A couple notes are in order here:
[1] You've not backed up your assertion with any reasoning.
[2] The problem wit
> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free
> > license.
> >
> > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one
> > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> > it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> > is non-free sof
>> 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
AJT wrote:
>BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
>Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite
frankly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
AJ quoth:
>> >Well,
>> >the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>> >decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>> >by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
>> Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not t
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> > it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> > is non-free sof
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, as can non-DFSG free source... but we generally hold that the
> > relevance of such a work isn't enough for it to be included in main.
>
> I'm saying the reason you might want to use
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> is non-free software satisfies their needs as they themselves presently
> understand
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> Debian distribution is unambiguously the bits we encourage people to use
> on their computers.
That'
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, as can non-DFSG free source... but we generally hold that the
> > relevance of such a work isn't enough for it to be included in main.
>
> I'm saying the reason you might want to use
On 2004-01-30 21:19:30 + Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This document is intended to supplement the Debian Free Software
Guidelines
I think you still need to amend the social contract to say which you
use when, which is what has been asked for in the past.
Your document
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> is non-free software satisfies their needs as they themselves presently
> understand
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
> process by which we assemble the Debian distribution. Whereas the
> Debian distribution is unambiguously the bits we encourage people to use
> on their computers.
That'
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a Social
> Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences like text from
> needing to satisfy the DFSG?
>
OK. Here goes
DRAFT FOR COMMENT/FLAMES ETC.
Debian
On 2004-01-30 21:19:30 + Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This document is intended to supplement the Debian Free Software
Guidelines
I think you still need to amend the social contract to say which you
use when, which is what has been asked for in the past.
Your document seem
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a Social
> Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences like text from
> needing to satisfy the DFSG?
>
OK. Here goes
DRAFT FOR COMMENT/FLAMES ETC.
Debian
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:34:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Not everything that could be useful can reasonably be guaranteed by
> > > the social contract.
> > Probably, but when it is a usefull act upon a work in main covered by
> > the DFSG, it seemingly is guaranteed by the Social Contra
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > > expelled from the pro
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:34:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Not everything that could be useful can reasonably be guaranteed by
> > > the social contract.
> > Probably, but when it is a usefull act upon a work in main covered by
> > the DFSG, it seemingly is guaranteed by the Social Contra
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > > expelled from the pro
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> > software authors.
> So
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:21:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways -- could you elaborate a it on the reasons you thinke "the Debian
> distribution" is better than "the Debian system"?
The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
process by which we assemble the Debian d
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> software authors.
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe having win98 availabl
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> > software authors.
> So
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the pa
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:21:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways -- could you elaborate a it on the reasons you thinke "the Debian
> distribution" is better than "the Debian system"?
The Debian system could be our distribution network, or the
process by which we assemble the Debian d
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> software authors.
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe having win98 availabl
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the pa
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:57PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Raul
it said that i won something but didn't give details please write back and
let me no what i won thank you [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2004-01-30 14:02:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Too many pronouns error.
No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:57PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:38PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >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
it said that i won something but didn't give details please write back and
let me no what i won thank you [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is a proposal to amend the resolution which was first posted in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
The rationale for this proposal is given in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html
On 2004-01-30 14:02:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Too many pronouns error.
No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:38PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >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
> > On the flip side,
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
> > software as
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please report this bug to them.
Too many pronouns error.
--
Raul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is a proposal to amend the resolution which was first posted in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
The rationale for this proposal is given in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:45:57AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, has anyone else noticed RMS's use of the royal "we" in
> these and other recent statements?
>
> He's never named another individual who agrees with him on these points.
That's not a significant issue.
There's eno
On 2004-01-30 04:56:11 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns
>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
On 2004-01-30 07:45:57 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
He's never named another individual who agrees with him on these
points.
I do not know the internal structure of the FSF USA nor its decisions
about this. RMS may be accurately reporting its view and able to
commit it
Anthony Towns wrote:
For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure
why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making.
Why not? Imagine people who's further decision on supporting
Debian depends on the Debian decision regarding non-free.
One can th
> > On the flip side,
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
> > software as
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please report this bug to them.
Too many pronouns error.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:45:57AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, has anyone else noticed RMS's use of the royal "we" in
> these and other recent statements?
>
> He's never named another individual who agrees with him on these points.
That's not a significant issue.
There's eno
On 2004-01-30 04:56:11 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>RMS has
done more for free software than you have, and he
thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely fre
On 2004-01-30 07:45:57 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
He's never named another individual who agrees with him on these
points.
I do not know the internal structure of the FSF USA nor its decisions
about this. RMS may be accurately reporting its view and able to
commit it to
On 2004-01-30 05:40:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the flip side,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
software as
Please report this bug to them.
Finally, note that RMS does claim that GFDL licensed works are free
We can claim that the unicor
Anthony Towns wrote:
For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure
why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making.
Why not? Imagine people who's further decision on supporting
Debian depends on the Debian decision regarding non-free.
One can think th
On 2004-01-30 05:40:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the flip side,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
software as
Please report this bug to them.
Finally, note that RMS does claim that GFDL licensed works are free
We can claim that the unicorn packa
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
> > non-free aids in that.
>
> Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:14:05AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> > alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
>
> Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'kee
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But personally, I don't think reducing the size of non-free is a goal.
>
> If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> unfortuna
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
> > non-free aids in that.
>
> Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > > distributing the "stupid little utility" inste
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:14:05AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> > alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
>
> Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'kee
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But personally, I don't think reducing the size of non-free is a goal.
>
> If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> unfortuna
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:05:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ wrote:
(And that's, like, so boring I'm reduced to tears. *sniff*)
> Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main
> gives the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact
> allows
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > distributing the "stupid little utility" instead of just being a
> > chunk of license like text.
>
> But there are a
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > > distributing the "stupid little utility" inste
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:50AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
> AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
Man. We need a "Insulting HOWTO"
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > expelled from the project.
> If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of th
Anthony Towns wrote:
The question is whether we do it
immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
One who wants to chop off cat's tail, s
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 tha
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:05:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ wrote:
(And that's, like, so boring I'm reduced to tears. *sniff*)
> Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main
> gives the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact
> allows
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > distributing the "stupid little utility" instead of just being a
> > chunk of license like text.
>
> But there are a
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:50AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
> AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
Man. We need a "Insulting HOWTO"
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Neither does including a small little non-free utility in main for
> > > which we don't have source.
> > Sure it does:
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I recall only ever finding two violations of the above, and I assure you I
> > had their accounts locked within the hour, and they were ultimately
> > expelled from the project.
> If you were to follow debian-legal, you'd find that this sort of th
Anthony Towns wrote:
The question is whether we do it
immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
One who wants to chop off cat's tail, shoul
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
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
>Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
>possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did yo
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Neither does including a small little non-free utility in main for
> > > which we don't have source.
> > Sure it does:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns
> >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
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
86 matches
Mail list logo
