Defining Free Software Business

MJ Ray mjr at
Wed Jun 28 22:54:49 UTC 2006

Yavor Doganov <yavor at>
> 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
> >
> ense.html
> 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
> manual.

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
Bv sekvu

More information about the Discussion mailing list