David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept > that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I > would be happy for it to brew some more (although I'll have to take off > my FSF hat, of course).
By "is staying", do you mean that the decision is made and nobody can say anything about it? The reason I dislike the "Affero bit" is that it is a further restriction on freedom. I stand for freedom. I like freedom. I learned about freedom from RMS, but he has apparently decided that freedom is no longer all it's cracked up to be. Is there any value in complaining about the "Affero bit", or is the FSF just going to insist on this? As with the FDL, this is very like an anti-flag burning rule. I believe in the values that the American flag supposedly stands for (freedom, principally), and accordingly I would not engage in flag burning. Those who want to ban flag-burning want to take away freedom in the name of preserving a symbol of freedom. Similarly, the FSF seems happy to take away freedom, in the name of preserving a certain political message. Even though I wholeheartedly *agree* with the message, I find it repugnant to be told that a reduction in freedom is the way to spread it. Moreover, in the case of the GFDL, the requirement has noxious consequences. For example, it prevents one from taking the text from an allegedly free manual and using it for some very different purpose. I would not be able, for example, to turn the Emacs manual into doc strings. Indeed, if the GFDL spreads, and more people add invariant sections, then there is a horrible effect if I want to make a manual out of bits and pieces of a hundred different manuals. I would be forced to distribute gobs and gobs of invariant sections, perhaps totally out of proportion to the manual I want to make. I have yet to hear the FSF say anything but "that particular freedom isn't very important, and getting our message out is very important", which sounds really like a concession that the point I (and others) have made is a very good one, and the FSF is simply content to sacrifice freedom, but unwilling to tarnish its name by actually saying so honestly. And I don't think bringing up honesty is unfair. The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, and promised to make a summary of those comments available. As far as I can tell, that promise was a bald-faced lie. If nothing happens soon, then the comments may just find their way to the public eye despite the FSF's apparent embarassment. Thomas
