From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pierre Bernatchez Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: doc license section Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:08:25 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz> References: <873cai3vg1.fsf@zip.com.au> <87y8s19d9i.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <1074722682.3851.47.camel@flare> <87u12oc34h.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87n08gc2g0.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074794611 2215 80.91.224.253 (22 Jan 2004 18:03:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 19:03:23 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AjjAp-0006dS-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:03:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjAo-0003ST-FX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:03:22 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjAF-0003P4-A1 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:02:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ajj9i-000329-I6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:02:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.236.16.42] (helo=snowfence.ogopogo.biz) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ajj9h-0002xr-CQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:02:13 -0500 Original-Received: from ogopogo.biz (unknown [192.168.1.14]) by snowfence.ogopogo.biz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1475D1FEA9 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:12:43 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87n08gc2g0.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3282 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3282 Marius Vollmer wrote: > Marius Vollmer writes: > > >>>Be aware that the feeling on the debian-legal mailing list is that the >>>GFDL is not sufficiently free for materials in Debian [...] >> >>Yes, but I'm going with the FSF here, simply because Guile is a GNU >>package. > > > To elaborate a bit: I don't see how Guile is different from any other > GNU package when it comes to the license of its manual. When there > are convincing reasons why Guile shouldn't use the FDL, no GNU package > should use it. This issue should be decided by the 'upper > management', for all of GNU... > This may be off topic, but since I did not bring up the subject, I am justified in voicing a dissenting opinion before going back to my role of guile beginner lurking the list. 'upper management' deciding for the underlings is the evil empire way of doing things. If GNU had fallen into 'upper management' oriented methods, it would be a sign that GNU lost sight of the objective and were morphing into what they most oppose. GNU's role is to provide advice, guidelines and a rallying point, not dictating decisions. Leadership not autocracy, the decisions are for participants to arrive at by consensus. GFDL raises questions for which adequate answers have yet to be given. Any knowing programmer infers from the word 'source' the meaning 'source and accompanying explanations and instructions'. So libre source includes libre documentation. Documentation which is published under more restrictive license further restricts the combination 'source and instructions' What's most unclear in the GFDL, is the reason behind these further restrictions. The Debian group (of which I am not a member to date) have registered some objections to the GFDL which at least appear valid and well founded. Your comment implies to me that rather than getting bogged down in legal jargon religious wars, you would prefer to pick a default choice, get on with the real work and let the debate find its way to a conclusion somewhere else. At first glance a sound proposition. But you are picking the wrong default. The correct default, pending further debate should be the status quo, what our community has been doing all along, publishing both source and its documentation under the same license. Adopting this current change in licensing as the new default choice without further debate is tantamount to blind obedience. The success of the libre software movement hinges on people thinking for themselves. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel