From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: doc license section Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:18:34 +0100 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87d69b608l.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> 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> <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074813732 8010 80.91.224.253 (22 Jan 2004 23:22:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:22:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 23 00:22:03 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 1Ajo9D-00065H-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:22:03 +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 1Ajo6x-00049T-J4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:19:43 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ajo6V-000459-JV for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:19:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ajo5u-0003nI-Sd for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:19:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.253.8.218] (helo=mail.dokom.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ajo5u-0003m9-6m for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:18:38 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.net17.dip92.dokom.de ([195.253.17.92] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by mail.dokom.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #3) id 1Ajo6i-0000vR-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:19:28 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 27346 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Jan 2004 23:18:34 -0000 Original-To: Pierre Bernatchez In-Reply-To: <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz> (Pierre Bernatchez's message of "Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:08:25 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) 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:3288 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3288 Pierre Bernatchez writes: > '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. I think your fears are unfounded. I did think for myself and came to the conclusion that this issue is not one that can be decided locally for the Guile project. The issue is not whether Guile should use the GNU FDL or not, the issue is whether the GNU FDL is a viable license in general. The FSF says yes, Debian says there are problems to solve. Since Guile is an FSF project, I go with what they say. I do wish that the FSF would publically comment on the concerns of the Debian people. Maybe they did, but I haven't found it yet. If nothing else, more projects adopting the GNU FDL will increase the pressure to resolve the problems that Debian has raised. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel