Defining Free Software Business
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Wed Jun 28 22:54:49 UTC 2006
Yavor Doganov <yavor at doganov.org>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:35:29 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It can't be proved because it's not true, which is another reason
> > that amendment shouldn't win. Others use those options, such as
> > http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/about-lic=
> Thanks for these links, I wasn't aware of their existence. I consider
> this one as an abuse of the GFDL -- the invariant sections should
> contain information that the author considers *important*. In this
> case the author thinks that he's very important, so I won't use his
The relationship of the author to the topic is named in the FDL
as one of the suitable topics for a Secondary section, so I don't
see how it's abusing the FDL. He thinks describing himself is
important. FSF thinks the GNU Manifesto is important. So be it.
I hope you now agree that Anton Zinoviev's amendment was supported
by some false claims, even if you still think it should have won.
> A more serious flaw is the title "Secure programming for Linux".
> Obviously he thinks that Linux is an operating system, which
> is a delusion.
I consider it a common mistake more than a delusion, but amen.
> [...] Fortunately only a few
> people (the DDs that voted for it) have such perverted logic. If you
> think that the GNU Manifesto is adware, I can only say that there is a
> huge precipice between us.
I don't think the GNU Manifesto is adware. I think putting an
unmodifiable GNU Manifesto into a manual debases the manifesto
by making it a cheap advert and makes the manual adware.
> If you think that you can impose your (the project's) view
> to other distributions to make that decision more legitimate,
> it's not going to happen.
I don't think that. All I do is explain my view, trying to
find peace and not leave misleading statements about debian.
> You have no idea how
> ridiculous it looks -- a priest teaching us about the foundations of
> Christianity while at the same time committing serial murders (yes,
> for a Free Software activist, I consider distributing non-free
> software the same as drug dealing or a crime of similar magnitude).
Interesting analogy. Apart from the murders, some FSF fans seem
to think FSF is Pope Leo X, with nothing to learn about their
subject: the debian project "when sober will change his mind".
If that continues, I think this difference of approaches is
about as likely to resolve as the main Christian church split.
Always sad IMO to liken free software to religion, though.
> I'll still continue to licence my manuals under GNU FDL, a free
> licence, acknowledged as free by the majority of the Free Community.
When did the majority acknowledge FDL as free?
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
More information about the Discussion