Re: problems of the fdl

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> writes:

    Eli> I don't understand how a relatively peaceful discussion about
    Eli> problems with the FDL got carried away into RMS's alleged
    Eli> hypocrisy.  Can't we talk about the subject matter without
    Eli> ever mentioning the proverbial Carthago?

I apologize for mentioning rms.

I do, however, want the FDL deprecated.  It is not appropriate for use
by a project such as Emacs which produces self-documenting free software.

I want it understood that the FDL is _not_ a free software license, it
is _not_ compatible with many licenses that are free software
licenses, and its _primary_ motivation for not being a free software
license is to achieve certain goals by restricting freedom.  Those
goals are inherently proprietary in nature; the intent is to give some
individual's commercial or political interests priority over all other
users of the document, at the expense of those users if they choose to
redistribute it in any form.

This eventually means going up against rms's authority, because (aside
from the minor matter of the anti-DRM clause, which is itself buggy)
rms's advocacy is the only thing this major error has in its favor.

However, now was not the time, here was not the place, and I
apologize, again, for jumping the gun.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.