[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Voila! A compromise!
- To: Poet/Joshua Drake <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Voila! A compromise!
- From: David Lawyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:19:36 -0700
- Cc: Richard Stallman <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Poet/Joshua Drake <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Richard Stallman <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <200007300647.AAA18120@wijiji.santafe.edu> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-from: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-message-id: <GnQ9C.A.36B.5pKh5@murphy>
- Resent-sender: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0pre3i
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:54:36PM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
> Is there anyone who has a problem with this?
YES! First, Stallman has been misquoted as the indented part is by
Guylhem Aznar. Second, Stallman's proposal is only for the
segregation of *existing* documents. The "clear message to make their
work free" seems to mean that from now on we accept only
documentation meeting Stallman's definition of free. Is that what
we all agree on?
However Guylhem's message seems to imply that we accept docs that
prohibit print publication but segregate them. This is completely
different than Stallman's proposal. So what are we talking about?
If I had to choose between the two proposals I would pick Stallman's
but there are many other alternatives including keeping the existing
LDP policy. I'll discuss this some more in other posts.
> Joshua Drake
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you guys think it's ok, that would be the best idea :
> > - non free : any license permitting that we redistribute freely the
> > document (ex opl a+b)
> > - ldp : gfdl or opl -a -b only
> >I think that segregating the existing non-free documents would be a
> >very good idea. You could continue to distribute them, but those
> >of us for whom they are unacceptable would be able to shun them.
> >Meanwhile, it would give new contributors a very clear message
> >to make their work free.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com