MJ Ray said on Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100,: > Summary: no exemption for FSF;
Yes. There is no need for special treatment for any particular entity. > doc-advocacy package suggestion; hope this is resolved. A good idea. `doc-semifree' would be better though. > I did not ask whether an edited version would have been more or > less enlightening, but whether an editable version would have been. For a newbie, the issue is not relevant. What is relevant is the message one gets. And first impressions really do count. > I think it is fair to decide whether I think their method is right, As I said, it is not a issue of `right' V. `wrong'. There are several ways of doing the `right' thing, and the problem right now is that FSF's and Debian's ways are incompatible. After the Gosling-EMACS experience, which RMS describes as `back- stabbing' (see the paragraph containing the word `Megatest' at www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html) and In light of recent statements by this same Gosling which can be found at http://programming.newsforge.com/programming/04/04/13/2023217.shtml?tid=105&tid=54 (watch out for wrapping of the URI) we really cannot trust people to ensure that they pass along the messages we want to convey. But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*, an attitude I disagree with. (but the, I am not a DD). If we fail to convey the concept of freedom, people (particularly the newbies) might not get the point. > as well as whether it does the job they want to do. AFAI see, it does. But I agree with the consensus here that there are better ways of getting others speak about freedom. > but if FSF will not release them under a free software licence, > debian should not make an exception for them. Yes, > Hopefully, we could find free software from other sources and make an > independent doc-advocacy (probably a bad name) package if people feel > strongly enough about this. And if the GFDL is not modified adequately, it will be appropriate to have a separate section for semi-free documentation. This might require some efforts to vet the contents and the invariant sections, but do we not spend efforts on checking the dependencies of GPL'd code? (for deciding whether they should go into main or contrib?) At least, the documents with verbatim licenses (like RFCs or the ones which come with emacs) can be put here. > I am quite happy if someone tries to take my words and use them for > another end. (Hell, they have in the past!) Most people would be unhappy when their *political* words are twisted. The problem arises when political speech gets intertwined with technical documentation. > I feel I have nothing to fear from open debate and people deciding > for themselves. But you overlook the possibility of people being misled by twisted words. Consequences of a misrepresented opinion are worse than that of malicious code inserted (mis)using liberty granted by the GPL. Which is why documentation should be treated differently from programs. And precisely why GFDL assigns `invariant' status to *Secondary* Sections alone. -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
