On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:32:46PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > For the FSF, freedom is the message, and has to be conveyed. FSF's > invariant clauses speak of free software and how users' rights are > affected by software. FSF is not, should not (and justifiably so) > concerned with, or can control what other people who use the GFDL (NOT > FSF's GFDL'd work) put in their invariant clauses. FSF rarely puts > technical info in invariant clauses. Its invariant clauses are very > small.
If they're not concerned with other people's use of the license, then they should use it but not advocate it. However, they *are* advocating its use, and therefore to not be concerned with its misuse would be extremely irresponsible. > RMS informed me when he was here (in January) that (1) he is not aware > of this committee, (2) he sees no problem with the GFDL. Obviously, > the communication `gap' still persists. You might want to pass that on to Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who was a member of the committee on Debian's side. -- Glenn Maynard
