GDB Manual
Nathanael Nerode
> > not to discuss that here.
>
> Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
>
> Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
> (they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
> They outnumber me, and I can't keep up with them, so I don't
> think it is useful to try.
This is a remarkable interpretation of the generally polite, reasoned
discussion here. We aren't trying to "throw stones at you". We
certainly don't want you to "keep up" (by throwing stones back ?!?).
I, anyway, attribute no malice to you. (Merely incompetence. ;-) )
Do you realize that at least one GNU contributor is quite unhappy about
the use of the GFDL on their work? See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html
You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly, which are
important for clarification of where you're coming from. If we got
clearer answers, we wouldn't keep asking you questions.
1. I asked:
>Where there is definite consensus is that "shackling" a technical
>manual to a political statement imposes unacceptably non-free
>restrictions on the right to modify the technical manual.
>
>You clearly believe that these restrictions simply aren't important.
>
>This appears to be because you believe that the types of modification
>which are restricted (generally speaking, modifications to fit in
>tightly limited spaces, either physical or programmatic) aren't
>necessary for freedom. Is this correct?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If it's correct, I, for one, will not discuss this with you further,
because I see no way of changing such an opinion. If I am *wrong* and I
have misunderstood your position, I want to be corrected so that I do
not misrepresent you!
2. Branden Robinson said to you:
>Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
>Project's standards?
This is a real question. If the answer is "no", obviously there's no
point in talking to anyone *but* you about the GNU Project's standards.
If the answer is "yes", then there are other people who we can ask
questions of, see if they have different opinions, or simply if we can
get clearer and more specific responses.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Richard Stallman
You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not
to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this
is not a court, not a cross-examination. You decide what to say, and
so do I. I won't always discuss what you want me to.
There are a number of reasons why I decide not to answer certain
questions. One is a matter of which topic they are about. I'm
discussing what is a free software license, not changes to the GFDL,
so when people raise the latter issue I decline to discuss it.
Another case is when a question is asked in a hostile tone. Often I
feel that the appropriate response is silence.
Even if I were inclined to answer every question that is posed to me
here and respond to every point, I don't have time. (I am getting 400
messages a day, and only half of them are junk.) There is no use in
my trying to respond to all the individual points that you and your
allies can raise, so I decided not to even try. Those who are
inclined to condemn me for not answering all the questions will
certainy get the chance. I may as well not worry about it.
Instead of trying to answer every point, I've decided to identify the
larger issues and write statements about them, choosing certain points
as examples to illustrate each issue.
I have not posted much about this issue in a couple of days, and I
have too much mail today to write a long message to address a larger
issue. So I decided to answer one of your questions.
>This appears to be because you believe that the types of modification
>which are restricted (generally speaking, modifications to fit in
>tightly limited spaces, either physical or programmatic) aren't
>necessary for freedom. Is this correct?
That is entirely correct. Several free software licenses are large
and thus make that sort of usage impossible. That's a practical
inconvenience, but no more.
However, in the case of the GFDL, the inconvenience does not have the
consequences that some people think.
Someone mentioned the fact that the GFDL says the work must "include"
the license where as the GPL says that the license must "accompany"
the work. His assumption was that this distinction had major
consequences, but on reflection I believe it does not make a
difference. A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could
be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to
be.
So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a
GFDL-covered manual. You would just have to distribute a little
booklet along with the reference card. The booklet would include the
license and any invariant sections.
Branden Robinson
> You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly,
>
> You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not
> to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this
> is not a court, not a cross-examination. You decide what to say, and
> so do I. I won't always discuss what you want me to.
Where else are we to get the answers we're looking for?
In fact, that's one of the questions you've elected not to answer: who,
aside from yourself, is qualified to speak on these matters? -- who knows
why (in detail) the GNU FDL was drafted and the rationale(s) for each
clause?
Your selection of questions which you'll deign to answer have done
little (to date) to elucidate the GNU FDL. It seems more that you
expect the Debian Project to take or leave the GNU FDL as-is, and do so
in ignorance of the specific motivations behind it[1]. This is not an
approach that fosters a spirit of community; it more closely resembles a
papal edict.
[1] Yes, there's the "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" essay, but
that essay does nothing to explain why the GNU FDL should be preferred
over the traditional GNU documentation license.
--
G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully
Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand
bra...@debian.org | Dad...not screaming in terror like
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
John Holroyd
> Even if I were inclined to answer every question that is posed to me
> here and respond to every point, I don't have time. (I am getting 400
> messages a day, and only half of them are junk.)
I wish I was that lucky, my snr is closer to 2 - 8 :(
> Someone mentioned the fact that the GFDL says the work must "include"
> the license where as the GPL says that the license must "accompany"
> the work. His assumption was that this distinction had major
> consequences, but on reflection I believe it does not make a
> difference. A work can consist of multiple volumes, so the GFDL could
> be in one volume while the other volume is as short as you need it to
> be.
>
> So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a
> GFDL-covered manual. You would just have to distribute a little
> booklet along with the reference card. The booklet would include the
> license and any invariant sections.
Thanks for that RMS, it answers one of my chief concerns with the
license, it would be nice if an explicit revision back to the
'accompany' terminology could be made in this regard, so as to remove
all doubt.
--
John Holroyd <val...@softhome.net>
Demos Technosis Ltd