Debian and non-free (Re: Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL)

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Sat Feb 25 11:39:30 UTC 2006

   >    As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you
   >    want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not
   >    contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and
   >    your non-standard definition is the only way to truth.
   > The only part that is inventing definitions is the Debian project
   > and its developers.

   Are you joking? Many people and groups invent definitions. E.g.,
   the FSF invented the definition Free Software (which is a good
   thing, of course). You're actually refusing the FSF credit for
   their work just to play your tiny word games, sad.

Please stop spreading absurd lies about what I wrote, please stop
implying things I cleary did not imply.  It is getting sickening quite
quickly.  You have repeatedly shown a clear lack of comprehension
skills, and instead of asking politley for clarification to something
you do not understand, you simply invent absurd lies.

The Debian project clearly is inventing what is `free' by
extrapolating the rights for `Free Software' to all branches of
digital content.  This is absurd by all logical means, and it can be
summed up by `nobody should have the right to modify what I think'.

   >    If you make me depend on this message, I want those
   >    rights. People differ on what needs to be free, and I can
   >    accept different opinions.  But if functional works are
   >    restricted, that might be legal, but I'll still call it
   >    immoral.
   > I think we agree here, I think.  But documentation isn't
   > functional.

   We've been through that already. It has been pointed out to you
   that even the FDL speaks of a "functional work" [which can contain
   non-functional parts, like an dedication, as you added, but this
   doesn't change the fact that the main part of the documentation is
   functional, and of course, the main part can be all of it if there
   are no invariant sections or cover-texts, so even a weaker version
   of your statement, "no documentation is 100% functional", turns out

Different words have different meanings in different contexts, once
again you show a clear lack of comprehension and resort to lying.
Please stop.  A document isn't functional in the sense of a program,
i.e. you cannot run it and get a result.  I cannot run the Emacs
manual and get an output.  Clearly, the Emacs manual isn't a
functional work in the same sense a program is.  This is what I mean
by functional in this context.

If you feel that something I wrote is vauge, ask politley for
clarifictaion instead of inventing lies.

   Don't you understand the difference between a) modifying a text
   (and stating that you did so, as required by GPL 2a), and b)
   claiming that the original author wrote what you did?

Again, you do not understand the difference between modification and
adding material.

   Of course it does, see the "verbatim copying" texts on their WWW
   site (which are non-free according to any of our different

A verbatim copying text is not non-free, it is clearly free.  Nobody
has the right to modify what one thinks about something.  At which
point your whole argument that the FSF is `non-free' falls apart.

   (against participants of this discussion as well as against Debian)
   which make your arguments look silly.

And you again resort to lies.  Please stop.

More information about the Discussion mailing list