Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject > > GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many > > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can > > be interpreted to accept it. > > As one of those more inclined to listen to the rationale behind the > GFDL, and as one who still leaves open the possibility that the > DFSG might allow for something very much like the GFDL, I > certainly hope that you do not intend the above to be an exhaustive > list of the arguments in favor of including GFDL-licensed manuals > in Debian. The arguments appear to be: > > 1) There are many GFDL manuals. > 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include. > > Obviously Debian (and the FSF) would not accept such arguments in > other contexts. For instance, one would not make much headway in > either circle regarding the inclusion of proprietary software by > arguing either of: > > 1) There are many proprietary software programs. > 2) The many proprietary software programs would be useful to > include.
I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it. > Part of such a demonstration might include an explanation of > the many tough decisions that the FSF had to make when drafting > the GFDL, and the rationales behind each part. With a greater > understanding of these tough issues, Debian developers might > say, "Wow. They're right. That is a tough issue to deal with > and we cannot think of any better way to write a license to > deal with that problem. Hmmm, perhaps the GFDL is as free as > we can get regarding this issue." Which brings us back to: : The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems to be "this is the : only way we can get our message out". This is the only reason we were given so far as to why important freedoms must be given up in the GFDL. I for one don't believe that method of getting the message out to be consistent with the message (of freedom) itself. So I cannot be convinced to give up the freedom and still call the license free. I don't feel we are making _any_ progress. We should simply agree to disagree. Debian appears to believe in stronger freedom than the FSF. Peter
