The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
Posted Oct 28, 2004 14:45 UTC (Thu) by jschrod
In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
I don't understand your post, or maybe I do... Did you read the OP? It said "a work without invariant sections and without cover texts" is considered free. The context gives a reasoning - because then all the work can be changed and that is considered "free by most persons". Your reply starts with a personal account of people you know, but without any context and any arguments. Then you jump to a related, but different topic and write about "work with invariant sections and with cover texts" and you use "is still free" as an implication that the editor meant that.
He wrote explicitly about that topic. So, why do you raise that straw man? Just to post the Debian link? You might have just done so, with a subject line "Debian viewpoint" or similar, that would have been better and more honest, IMNSHO.
Disclaimer: As a member of the LaTeX team, I'm biased when it comes to the Debian Legal folks or on any Debian viewpoint on "free licenses". I would have never had the patience of Frank or David to discuss license issues with people who insult developers with every email they write. They're more hilarious than rms, and that's sometimes hard to do.
to post comments)