On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 22:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> [Note Mail-Followup-To:]
Noted, but the problem is not everyone is subscribed to debian-project,
which makes continuity of the discussion somewhat awkward...
>
> The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale.
> It should be relatively straightforward to come up with a set of
> guidelines that allows in the GFDL and similar licenses but agreeing on
> those guidelines requires a decision that any changes (additions as well
> as removals!) from the set of freedoms we require for software are good
> changes. That really needs more of a postive argument for any new
> guidlines to be made.
I guess I'm one of those people who are perplexed by the desire to
separate "Freedom of Software" from "Freedom of Documentation".
I prefer my freedom to be "Free as in Freedom", not "Free as in Free
Computer Code". There's more to life and liberty than just running
computers, y'know?
Rather than creating a DFDG (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines),
maybe it would make more sense to just change the DFSG to DFG ("Debian
Freedom Guidelines") ?
If the problem is that someone does not want their voice to stop being
heard, well, they can still make their own version available.
If the problem is that they don't want someone else putting words into
their mouth, then they can sue for fraud, can't they?
If the problem is they want appropriate acknowledgement for their
contribution, they can expose the copier for plagiarism.
If the problem is they don't want other people handling their creative
works according to their own needs, then why are they trying to call
their work "free" ?
Drew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
