* Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> [2019-10-27 16:33]: > Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:56:00 -0400, a ecrit: > > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects > > stance on an issue. > > > > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community > > deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger. > > No, this shows that the philosophy is not that clearly defined: what > are these invariant sections in the documentation, are they really free > software?
For example, I cannot say, and it is morally not just to say that Samuel Thibault said: "what are these invariant sections in the documentation, are they really proprietary software?" -- because it was your opinion, I cannot say that you said "proprietary" when you said "free". But I can distribute your opinion, and I am free to distribute it. There people who think that GNU software is not free because it does not allow binary only distribution without sources. Those are other movements, not free software movement. Those are other thought directions, but it is not free software movement. Thus you may have opinion that GNU FDL is not enough free because opinions or invariant sections are "not free enough" because receiver would not be able to state that somebody else said what person did not say -- then I leave it to you. I know and I see and I can observe, analyze and conclude that GNU FDL was well formed document, legally well thought. It can be subject of discussions, but only if you are lawyer and have legal opinion on that, then I would give to such statements "invariant is not free" much more weight. -- Thanks, Jean Louis
