On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for > each problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does > not make things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of > the license, stop nit-picking so much."
Or rather, I think that most people who voted this option felt that while there may be problems with these particular issues, it was not the intent of the FSF to make them issues from a freedom aspect. [Indeed, from the conversations which were held on this list 3 years ago that was basically the reasonable conclusion.] In any case, we've been working with the FSF to resolve these issues as well, so hopefully a new version of the GFDL will no longer posess them. Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]