Re: License change for the GPH.

Hi!

Just a quick update.  Richard replied privately to me; I responded along
these lines:

I recall that at least once discussing license problems on the internal
gnu-prog-discuss list has been disallowed.  I did not agree to this
censorship but back then it was not a direct problem of mine.  Now, a
GPH license change is GnuPG related and thus on my turf - here I won't
let anyone stop me discussing things unless there are sound reasons for
this.  A proposed change from GFDL to CC-by-sa/GPL is neither a security
issue nor would it harm the free software/society community.

The author of the GPH as well as many others signed copyright
assignments to the FSF on my request.  They did this in the true believe
that the FSF will act responsible and in the best interest of the free
software community.  It is sad to see how the FSF distrusts their
volunteers by following a seemingly selfish interest to push for the
GFDL despite that the world has moved to better and easier alternatives
for free documentation.

Today we have a plethora of free documentation and it is more the norm
than the exception that documentation is free.  This is for sure due to
RMS's efforts on demanding free documentation.  It is just that today
the sledgehammer of the GFDL can and should be replaced by precision
mechanics' tools.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.