A few people wrote:
Their moto (sic!), inspired by their leader, is > "Ideology sucks".
But ideology really sucks! What has ideology got to do with Freedom. I might not entirely agree with the OSI, but the way many people at the FSF intend freedom is very patronizing.
I don't want to be told what freedom is, I'm old and mature enough to know it already.
An active participant to this mailing list and representative of the FSFE once said the FSF is full of nutcases. Well, it might show up in such circumstances and won't buy me into your arguments.
Having said that, I think the position of the Linux kernel developers is pathetic; if you don't like that license, don't use it and shut up. I don't see any incompatibilities between the kernel and the user space.
Ottavio Caruso -- Please follow up to mailing list!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Their moto (sic!), inspired by their leader, is "Ideology sucks".
But ideology really sucks!
... is what people who do not care about freedom say. People who fought have for different rights over the course of history have been called all kind of names.
I don't want to be told what freedom is, I'm old and mature enough to know it already.
Just because you are old and mature enough, doesn't automatically mean that you know what it means. Older and more mature people than you have tried to get through injust laws that diminish our freedoms, and it happens each day.
An active participant to this mailing list and representative of the FSFE once said the FSF is full of nutcases.
I seriously doubt that any representative of the FSFE ever said anything like that.
Cheers
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
But ideology really sucks!
... is what people who do not care about freedom say.
Higly offensive. I presume you have been part of any political party that believes in democracy...
Just because you are old and mature enough, doesn't automatically mean that you know what it means.
F**k! I'll print and frame it for science's sake! This is the stupidest statement I have heard in a million years!
An active participant to this mailing list and representative of the FSFE once said the FSF is full of nutcases.
I seriously doubt that any representative of the FSFE ever said anything like that.
I can quote witnesses. However that statement suits you!
Ottavio Caruso -- Please follow up to mailing list!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
But ideology really sucks!
... is what people who do not care about freedom say.
Higly offensive. I presume you have been part of any political party that believes in democracy...
I think you mean `have not been', and I try to stay away from political stuff.
Just because you are old and mature enough, doesn't automatically mean that you know what it means.
F**k! I'll print and frame it for science's sake! This is the stupidest statement I have heard in a million years!
I'll try an ignore your profanity. So you claim that all people who are old and mature grasp the concept of freedom? Then why are the same old and mature people trying to diminish our rights? For example, why did these old and mature people fight _against_ the right for women to vote? It was quite a controversial point not so many years ago, and still is in some countries.
Hopefully you can stop using profanity, and name calling in your next reply. As for your claims that the FSFE is calling the FSF for nutcases, please quote references, not "witnesses".
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Higly offensive. I presume you have been part of any political party that believes in democracy...
I think you mean `have not been'
correct!
, and I try to stay
away from political stuff.
so you practice politics knowing nothing of politics, a quintessential mixture of assumption and arrogance... By the way I used to be in politics and I have nothing to regret!
F**k! I'll print and frame it for science's sake! This is the stupidest statement I have heard in a million years!
I'll try an ignore your profanity.
Profanity? Probably 'foul language', yes, but profanity sound like something religious to me...
So you claim that all people who are old and mature grasp the concept of freedom? Then why are the same old and mature people trying to diminish our rights? For example, why did these old and mature people fight _against_ the right for women to vote? It was quite a controversial point not so many years ago, and still is in some countries.
So you definitely have a problem with older people! I recall an old joke: "My parents hate me, so I crack websites".
Hopefully you can stop using profanity, and name calling in your next reply. As for your claims that the FSFE is calling the FSF for nutcases, please quote references, not "witnesses".
I invite the guy who said this at the Greater London User the 22nd of April to confirm that himself here. What he said was: "In the Free Software movement there are lot of nutcases". We were discussing Free Software Evangelism.
Speaking of which, Alfred, after giving you credit for what you at the Hurd and Arch, I think that your harsh contributions and verbal slapping to honest people (I still remember when you early labelled MJ Ray a junkie!) are a pain in the neck to those who are genuinely involved in spreading and sharing knowledge.
So I will follow the end of this thread, unsuscribe from this list and wait for the day you will be old and wise enough.
Ottavio Caruso -- Please follow up to mailing list!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
so you practice politics knowing nothing of politics, a quintessential mixture of assumption and arrogance...
I don't practise politics, period.
So you claim that all people who are old and mature grasp the concept of freedom? Then why are the same old and mature people trying to diminish our rights? For example, why did these old and mature people fight _against_ the right for women to vote? It was quite a controversial point not so many years ago, and still is in some countries.
So you definitely have a problem with older people! I recall an old joke: "My parents hate me, so I crack websites".
How about answering the question? You are (or claim to be) the old and mature person here, so you could enlighten this little quip with your wisdom instead of using profanity, ad hominem attacks, and what not.
Hopefully you can stop using profanity, and name calling in your next reply. As for your claims that the FSFE is calling the FSF for nutcases, please quote references, not "witnesses".
I invite the guy who said this at the Greater London User the 22nd of April to confirm that himself here. What he said was: "In the Free Software movement there are lot of nutcases". We were discussing Free Software Evangelism.
You seem to have a very bad understanding what a movement is versus a foundation. Both the FSFE and the FSF are foundations, not movements.
Cheers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
I invite the guy who said this at the Greater London User the 22nd of April to confirm that himself here. What he said was: "In the Free Software movement there are lot of nutcases". We were discussing Free Software Evangelism.
Hi Ottavio
I believe you are talking about me and quoting me out of context.
First of all, I was speaking as an individual. I spoke at the GLLUG about the FSFE and the Free Software moment, explaining why I thought it was really important for more people to get involved. I did not speak as a representative of the FSFE, I made this clear at the beginning of the talk. I was speaking as someone who thought that Free Software was such a good idea I became a fellow of the FSFE.
Secondly, I do not think the FSF is full of nutcases. Quite the opposite. I think the FSF is the Foundation that started the Free Software movement and has protected it to this day.
At GLLUG we were talking about perception. We were discussing how we could spread the word about Free Software when there are occasional perceptions of the movement as unreasonable. I pointed out two important things: (1) In all movements there are people who are extreme. (2) Free Software is not an extreme movement.
Free Software is a really good idea. Richard Stallman - who people sometimes label as extreme - is a very lucid advocate of exactly why Free Software is a good idea. His book 'Free Software, Free Society' is a work that explains why our movement is necessary in terms that can only be called logical, well structured and easy to understand. He is blunt about why Free Software is important and perhaps this annoys some people but his arguments are clear.
The problem - as I pointed out in London - is the 'slashdot' effect of people yelling at each other. We see it all over the technology field. Sometimes people yell at each other so much that the important message is lost.
Examples include the 'slashdot' threads that appear on: - Free Software vs closed source software - Free Software vs Open Source software - Apple vs PC - BSD vs GPL
The job of advocates is to explain why XYZ is a good idea. If they are Free Software advocates their job is to explain why Free Software is a really good idea. Perhaps they can localise their talk to the audience; what works in New York might not work as well in London. Perhaps they can rephrase things for their audience; what engineers want to hear might be different from political students. An advocates job is to spread the good word.
I believe we need the Free Software Foundations to help provide a centre for the Free Software movement. They are great rallying points, sources of information and arenas of positive action. It's great that we have different foundations (FSF, FSFE, FSF India etc) because this means it's easy to have pro-active centres that are also able to engage with maximum effectiveness in local issues.
Right now this conversational thread is quite extreme. People are yelling at each other again. I don't think it's necessary. Surely we can discuss things without resorting to anger and tension.
Perhaps we can return to the core topic; that of the GPLv3 and the kernel developers' opinions. It might be a good idea to engage more positively with their concerns. For instance, perhaps a lot of the uncertainty and doubt about the GPLv3 has already been addressed through the official GPLv3 website (http://gplv3.fsf.org). Maybe if some time was spent matching concerns with the review process it might lead to more people feeling confident in the new license.
I guess one thing we can all agree on is that the GPLv3 is important. Whether people like it or not this license process is a big deal. We really need to explore it carefully and ensure that misunderstandings are minimized.
Shane
I generally agree with the notion of your message, but describing Free Software as a "good idea" is an extremely weak way to represent it. That's not what we're fighting for. A good idea is to customize your Emacs, or not to get late for work if your boss is picky; the Free Software Movement is much more than that.
If we fail to explain to the people (and that means mostly the "users") that they're entitled to the essential freedoms, they would never recognize them and would not attempt to protect them. If we allow them to accept that "it's better because of the open collaborative development model" whey will hardly grasp the core point and will probably not make the analogy with other grave bugs in our society. The Free Software Movement is just the beginning of the revolution; if we turn it to a practical effort (as our friends from the Open Source campaign have done), we will never achieve our true goals.
Regarding the topic (the kernel developers' statement wrt GPLv3) I just reread RMS' and Eben Moglen's transcripts of their speeches at Barcelona and Bangalore -- they address all concerns that the Linux developers speak about so perhaps it's much better to point the people to those speeches.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Yavor Doganov wrote:
I generally agree with the notion of your message, but describing Free Software as a "good idea" is an extremely weak way to represent it.
Yavor, you're right. Free Software is more than a good idea. It's a fantastically important, revolutionary and immediately effective idea with enormous potential for changing society for the better.
Regarding the topic (the kernel developers' statement wrt GPLv3) I just reread RMS' and Eben Moglen's transcripts of their speeches at Barcelona and Bangalore -- they address all concerns that the Linux developers speak about so perhaps it's much better to point the people to those speeches.
Excellent point! This is exactly what I meant about finding practical ways to link people's concerns with the answers they need.
Perhaps - for the betterment of this thread - you could point out a few of key things RMS and Eben said.
Which links did you follow for the transcripts? Perhaps (just an idea) you could blog about the kernel developer concerns and point out these links?
Shane
Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Perhaps - for the betterment of this thread - you could point out a few of key things RMS and Eben said.
[not exact quotes, but very close, I believe] Regarding DRM: Eben Moglen: "You cannot do technologically what you're not allowed to do legally, have a nice day!"
"If you send somebody home, give him the keys of the house!"
RMS: "GPLv3 does not forbid DRM, it is not possible to do that. What it does is to provide an escape from the restrictions for those who want to escape".
"Linus Torvalds objects, with an irrational kind of stubbornness, to one of our goals. Namely, preventing tivoisation. He wants people to be able to tivoise the products that you use, and thus take away your freedom. This should not be surprising. Linus Torvalds never supported the Free Software Movement."
Which links did you follow for the transcripts?
When, I believe, Ciaran posted them on this list, I just downloaded them so what I have is only the link to the Bangalore speeches (since it was easy to find it): http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript.en.html
Perhaps (just an idea) you could blog about the kernel developer concerns and point out these links?
That would be kind of useless, as nobody reads my blog. But since the beginning of this "dispute", back in January, I'm trying to persuade the developers I know with relevantly good success (although much worse than I'd like). But in order to explain how much better GPLv3 is, I have to start from the beginning, explaining what freedom is. The new version of the license is exactly in the *same spirit*, if people understand that it tries to protect us from the new threats of our freedom, which were not evident in 1991.
Perhaps (just an idea) you could blog about the kernel developer concerns and point out these links?
[...] nobody reads my blog.
Another online activity worth doing is participating in the forum discussions for such news stories.
On this LWN.net story, I was able to reply to a lot of the criticisms that people raised, but there was also a discussion on groklaw, and probably other sites, which I couldn't participate in.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Yavor Doganov wrote:
RMS: "GPLv3 does not forbid DRM, it is not possible to do that. What it does is to provide an escape from the restrictions for those who want to escape".
With amazing timing...there has just been a release from the GPLv3 process that directly addresses some of the developer concerns about the license. I have posted it pretty much in full below because it's exactly what we're talking about.
==
The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.
1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power. Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions.
2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it.
Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either.
GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.
3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the same job internationally.
Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.
Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.
We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law.
==
I think it's well worth visiting http://gplv3.fsf.org and signing up to the list to get stuff like this.
Shane :)
To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law.
Reminder: Please keep in mind, that this is written from the USA's point of view. In Europe we don't fight *for* a change in patent law, but *against* a change.
Shane M. Coughlan shane@shaneland.co.uk forwarded: [...]
Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. [...]
Even that use is only legitimate within certain limits: a software licence should not terminate because of acts near-totally unrelated to the licensed software and the licensee; and a copyright licence should not terminate because of patent problems.
Terminating for unrelated acts is a problem - it is similar to the bad old licences that say the licensee may not offer support services, or must pet a cat before copying the software.
Terminating the copyright licence because of patent disputes is a problem because it can import effects of the USA's bad patent law and lawsuit-happy culture into other countries. The FSF has often argued against confusing different so-called "Intellectual Property" laws, so why this U-turn by putting patent and copyright terms in one licence?
"These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them." (in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html - see also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml )
[...]
I think it's well worth visiting http://gplv3.fsf.org and signing up to the list to get stuff like this.
It's marginal value IMO. No open discussion is allowed on that list and the useful stuff is reposted in other public forums.
The GPLv3 process is not as open as it should be. Some useful things are only in formats like PDF, rather than plain text or html, there are browser and email client requirements to meet before participating in the comment system (even for reading) and the form of comments is limited to ones linked to short sections of the draft. I will retry the email interface soon because I have changed my mail client, but the instructions http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html make it pretty clear that I am a third-class participant, required to ensure things which I have no way of ensuring, so I offer the above concerns in this public forum, in case anyone else will ask them first.
The current GPLv3 comment system should be junked before the end of the process and replaced with a more common email+web-forum-based moderated consultation which is open to all hackers with the most basic software.
Regards,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
Some useful things are only in formats like PDF, rather than plain text or html
I thought they released the latex source for the PDF documents - which would allow someone to use latex2html or some tool like that.
the form of comments is limited to ones linked to short sections of the draft.
To comment on a whole section, attach your comment to the section title.
The FSF has often argued against confusing different so-called "Intellectual Property" laws, so why this U-turn by putting patent and copyright terms in one licence?
That is why the license speaks explicitly about patents and copyright, and doesn't mix them into one term. There is no generalisation of the terms going on.
The current GPLv3 comment system should be junked before the end of the process and replaced with a more common email+web-forum-based moderated consultation which is open to all hackers with the most basic software.
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do. PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 26/09/06 13:34:
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do. PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
I also believe that most of those who have been able to participate have been satisfied with the participation tools.
Sam
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
- Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 26/09/06 13:34:
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do.
Firstly, I have a couple of web browsers installed, including Firefox, but they do not work with the system.
Secondly, web browsers are too large to download over GSM, I don't even have a telephone landline at the moment (thanks BT) and I can't see how to download stuff to removable media on the public library computers.
I say it should be junked simply because it makes various undocumented particular software demands, instead of using widely-available accessible tools.
PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
PDF viewers are more basic than text editors, eh?
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
If FSF needs help or funding to get a working comment system, they should ask for it in good time. I'd chip in and I'm sure many others would too, but I would not pay the people who made the current inaccessible system.
I also believe that most of those who have been able to participate have been satisfied with the participation tools.
That's not really surprising, is it?
Thanks,
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do.
Firstly, I have a couple of web browsers installed, including Firefox, but they do not work with the system.
Have you reported the bugs you have experienced to the GPLv3 commentary people?
Secondly, web browsers are too large to download over GSM, I don't even have a telephone landline at the moment (thanks BT) and I can't see how to download stuff to removable media on the public library computers.
Most people do not use GSM or public library computers for these kind of things.
I say it should be junked simply because it makes various undocumented particular software demands, instead of using widely-available accessible tools.
They are using widely-available tools, standard web browsers and document viwers. You seem to be in the minority (like me actually), and if you wish to have your needs catered for you can always pay someone or even improve the commenting system yourself. Saying that a perfectly usable system for the majority of people should be junked simply because you dislike it isn't useful.
PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
PDF viewers are more basic than text editors, eh?
For most people, yes. But both you and I are in a minority which preferse text over PDF.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
If FSF needs help or funding to get a working comment system, they should ask for it in good time. I'd chip in and I'm sure many others would too, but I would not pay the people who made the current inaccessible system.
I didn't imply that they needed funding, but if you want _your_ needs catered for, then you should pay them instead of claiming that they have made it hard for anyone to follow the process.
But if you can contribute to the FSF, or the FSFE then you should of course do so! Money is always a needed thing.
Cheers.
Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
Firstly, I have a couple of web browsers installed, including Firefox, but they do not work with the system.
Have you reported the bugs you have experienced to the GPLv3 commentary people?
Yes. From memory, after a sequence of here's how to reproduce the bug/works for me/what settings are you using/<fx:silence /> exchanges, they published the stet source code, but it was undocumented to the point of not even saying what version of RT and what configuration it needs to be used with. Questions about the published source were unanswered because the maintainers were too busy. It definitely did not follow the Distribution tar Files from the Information for GNU Maintainers. I have not looked since then, so it may have changed, but I prefer to contribute to projects that welcome contributions - hope that's understandable.
Some minor bugs, like the search erroring out, were fixed, but have reappeared later. There appears to be no bug tracker or regression testing for the comments system software. Trying to report a bug and track it is unnecessarily difficult. GNU has bug trackers at Savannah - it should be used for this.
Finally, it seemed that GNU's accessibility and usability webmaster had stood down, although this is still not reflected on http://www.gnu.org/people/webmeisters.html
[...]
I say it should be junked simply because it makes various undocumented particular software demands, instead of using widely-available accessible tools.
They are using widely-available tools, standard web browsers and document viwers.
It was not accessible with a Firefox-name-changed(*) browser, Links or Emacs-w3 for me. What do you call standard web browsers?
(* - It is necessary to change Firefox's name and some icons to make a free software web browser from it.)
You seem to be in the minority (like me actually), and if you wish to have your needs catered for you can always pay someone or even improve the commenting system yourself.
Maybe, but the cost of doing so has been artificially inflated by the developers of the system failing to document it. As previously mentioned, I do not want to pay the current maintainers. I have access to an RT hacker, but he did not determine the setup required and it would be relatively expensive to use trial-and-error on it.
Shouldn't the FSF's GPLv3 consultation be an example of best practice? Shouldn't it be liberal in what tools can access it? Shouldn't it be conservative in what tools it requires?
Saying that a perfectly usable system for the majority of people should be junked simply because you dislike it isn't useful.
"The majority" is just a guess. Even so, there is no need for consultations to discriminate against minorities on unrelated issues. One should be very suspicious of those that do.
It is useful to say this consultation should move to any one of a number of the more widely-used open protocols with many free software clients. At the very least, the requirements for access should be accurately documented.
Regards,
I forwared your message to Matt Lee, he will answer your concerns.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 26/09/06 13:34: ...
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do. PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
This is why you should not have kept out of politics.
The participation mechanism acts as a pre-selector of participants. How are we to know how many would-be participants are excluded and silent because the participation mechanism excluded them. Naturally it will seem like the majority [of those we know about ~ participants] can easily use the participation mechanism. And anybody else is probably an enemy-of-the-state / attempting-to-cast-unclean-votes / an-agitator / generally-not-worth-talking-about-anyway.
Tony Blair used pre-selection before democratic vote to try and override true democracy for the Welsh Assembly and for London Mayor, and failed in both cases. I don't know where else he has tried it.
Pre-selection of participants on criteria that correlates with desired outcome is a usable mechanism of obtaining the desired outcome while permitting free and full discussion and input from all participants. - i.e. an open process with closed inputs is as bad as a closed process.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it doesn't look like FSF have made it easy to say that this is what has not happened.
"Oh, we were short of money to make a standards compliant fully accessible system, but the one we have permits participation from everyone we like" is a typical response.
So in short, "a wonderful job" and "majority of [participants] can easily use" is positive spin, opinion, but no defence.
And not being the FSF it is of course not up to you to defend it either, I'm not really interested in whether or not the FSF (or you) can defend what (as it may be said) they were constrained by circumstances to do, I merely observe that it doesn't look good.
Sam
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do. PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
This is why you should not have kept out of politics.
The participation mechanism acts as a pre-selector of participants. How are we to know how many would-be participants are excluded and silent because the participation mechanism excluded them.
Nobody has excluded MJ, he is quite free to add such a feature him self, or pay someone to do it.
The rest of your post I simply do not understand.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/09/06 11:44:
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do. PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
This is why you should not have kept out of politics.
The participation mechanism acts as a pre-selector of participants. How are we to know how many would-be participants are excluded and silent because the participation mechanism excluded them.
Nobody has excluded MJ, he is quite free to add such a feature him self, or pay someone to do it.
I haven't said that MJ was excluded. I merely commented that your opinion of the system being usable by those who used it was content free. I merely commented that FSF are hard put to show that it wasn't a selective exclusion should someone make the claim.
The rest of your post I simply do not understand.
Well, as I say, you shouldn't have avoided politics.
Sam
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 11:36 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The GPLv3 process is not as open as it should be. Some useful things are only in formats like PDF, rather than plain text or html, there are browser and email client requirements to meet before participating in the comment system (even for reading) and the form of comments is limited to ones linked to short sections of the draft. I will retry the email interface soon because I have changed my mail client, but the instructions http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html make it pretty clear that I am a third-class participant, required to ensure things which I have no way of ensuring, so I offer the above concerns in this public forum, in case anyone else will ask them first.
The current GPLv3 comment system should be junked before the end of the process and replaced with a more common email+web-forum-based moderated consultation which is open to all hackers with the most basic software.
Hey you know what? This commenting system actually requires a computer and a network connection!!!! Oh my God! It requires all that!
I pretend a snail mail based system because _I_ don't want to use computers or networks as they are evil ...
</sorry but couldn't resist>
Simo.
In discussion@fsfeurope.org, simo wrote:
The current GPLv3 comment system should be junked before the end of the process and replaced with a more common email+web-forum-based moderated consultation which is open to all hackers with the most basic software.
Hey you know what? This commenting system actually requires a computer and a network connection!!!! Oh my God! It requires all that!
This kind of arrogance and cynism is exactly what's called for in this situation. And I've observed it a lot in various forms in such discussions.
The issue of browser dependence is not really new (about 10 years old, minimum), so I don't think I need to explain how it differs from the requirement of (any kind of) computer with (any kind of) network connection.
I'm likewise amazed about the ridiculousness of some other arguments used to support it, such as quoting browser statistics. Just imagine another organisation, say the EU, making an influential survey on an important political matter, requiring a certain OS, browser, document format or whatever that "98% of computer users use or have ready access to". What an outcry this would be here! (But the supported browser in this case is a free one? Well, yes, but it's still only one browser, other free browsers are not supported. Also, even though we probably agree that when others use such means to get an unfair advantage to proprietary software, this is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that using the same means, intentionally or nor, to get an unfair advantage to free software is a good thing.)
BTW, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html says: "The GPLv3 comment system is actively being developed, and its browser compatibility is currently limited." So this means, according to the usual meaning of "currently", that the issue will be resolved, does it? I just wonder if this is going to happen before the end of the process (seeing that it's been at least several months now since the issue was first brought up), otherwise it would be of no value.
I've looked at the comment system, using The Supported Browser(tm), and it does look nice and spiffy and all, and its authors are probably quite proud of the program, rightfully. Unfortunately, a public comment process about the most important (as intended) free software licence for the next several years is exactly the wrong place to deploy it; here, spiffy features should be second in importance to the maximum possible openness.
Finally, I'll note that http://gplv3.fsf.org/ abuses the "Any Browser" tag (which it applies to "This site" which by usual definition includes all subpages, such as the comment system). As long as the issue isn't resolved, I hope they will at least be so honest as to remove this tag. (CC to webmaster@gplv3.fsf.org for this reason; if another address or a special form and/or browser must be used to post such comments to the web masters, anyone feel free to forward this; I won't.)
Now all you who support the current comment system can go on asserting each other how good it is, but it won't convince anyone else. Even if I don't share all of the Linux developers' concerns about the GPLv3, I understand well why they didn't submit them via the designated route, but chose to write an open letter instead ...
Frank
Please do not post such long messages, my bandwidth is limited to 110 Baud. Also, it not only takes a long time to download your message, but it takes several pages of paper to print it on my teleprinter terminal. Also, could you use EBCDIC? It takes alot of processing power to convert your very long message from ASCII to EBDCDIC.
But seriously...
Just imagine another organisation, say the EU, making an influential survey on an important political matter, requiring a certain OS, browser, document format or whatever that "98% of computer users use or have ready access to". What an outcry this would be here!
That is how it actually is and should be, the real problem is requiring people to install non-free software to be able to contribute to these things. With free software you can study how the process works, and even adapt it for your own needs, something that is simply impossible with non-free software. The remaining 2% actually have the freedom to take the supported tools and make them work in the manner they would like to, if the tools one needs are free software. So if you really dislike how things work, say that they are not supported in your browser of choice, you can study Firefox (for example) how it solves the problem and just copy the relevant code with maybe some modifications.
The problem you noted with browser independency was not really browser independance, but independance from non-free browsers which added various incompatible features that other browsers did not understand. This is no longer a very big problems, since at the time we did not have a free graphical browser, now we do.
The supported browser that the GPLv3 commenting process supports is a browser we all can install, since it is free software, so there is absolutley no reason not to require it. It is much like it isn't wrong to require GCC specific features in a program, or a specific free file format like OGG Theora for videos.
And anyway, if you don't want to use Firefox, you can always comment through email.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Please do not post such long messages, my bandwidth is limited to 110 Baud.
Please do not send me a 2nd copy by private mail, I'm reading the list.
Also, could you use EBCDIC? It takes alot of processing power to convert your very long message from ASCII to EBDCDIC.
I don't use evil proprietary formats like EBCDIC.
But seriously...
Just imagine another organisation, say the EU, making an influential survey on an important political matter, requiring a certain OS, browser, document format or whatever that "98% of computer users use or have ready access to". What an outcry this would be here!
That is how it actually is and should be, the real problem is requiring people to install non-free software to be able to contribute to these things. With free software you can study how the process works, and even adapt it for your own needs, something that is simply impossible with non-free software.
(a) Stop preaching, please. We're on a FS list here. And note that in my paragraph you quoted, I'm not talking about free or non-free at all, but about the sillyness of quoting numbers as an argument to exclude a minority. (BTW, what you say is actually wrong -- you only mention freedom 1; software may give one of the four freedoms and still be non-free.)
(b) Even it if was a "free browser required" site, I'd strongly disagree, as I wrote. This would be a requirement unrelated to the actual freedom (just like in many cases where proprietary software is required, it's not because of the proprietaryness, but because of requiring some particular software that happens to be proprietary). IMHO, doing the same "in retaliation" would be worse than "open source" advocacy, i.e. preferring free software not because of its freedom, not even because of its technical merits, but simply by "decree". (Think about the message that would send: "Why should I use FS? Not because of its freedoms, but because you must use it in order to access this web site." We certainly don't want this.)
(c) The situation is not even like in (b), because not all free browsers are supported, only a particular one.
(d) And even this one, in some forms, is not really free as MJR has reminded us. (According to RMS in http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353, "To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code." I don't know myself if this is true, but if we trust RMS, it would actually mean this requirement might have made some people (who didn't build it from source themselves) use a not (entirely) free browser to view this site, instead of a fully free one they might have otherwise used.)
(e) The "Any Browser" campaign has never been an "Any Free Browser" campaign. If you (or the FSF) want to change this, you can start your own "Any Free Browser" campaign. But then please use appropriate icons or slogans to avoid confusion with the real "Any Browser" campaign, on sites such as gplv3.fsf.org that are not "Any Browser" capable.
Frank
Also, could you use EBCDIC? It takes alot of processing power to convert your very long message from ASCII to EBDCDIC.
I don't use evil proprietary formats like EBCDIC.
EBCDIC is not a propietary format.
(c) The situation is not even like in (b), because not all free browsers are supported, only a particular one.
You are free to modify the supported browser into something that fits your needs, so that your favourite browser works with the commenting process. Would you like to do that?
(d) And even this one, in some forms, is not really free as MJR has reminded us. (According to RMS in http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353, "To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code."
What he means is that the binaries as distributed by Mozilla are not-free (they include a non-free bug reporting tool). Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Cheers
Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
You are free to modify the supported browser into something that fits your needs, so that your favourite browser works with the commenting process. Would you like to do that?
Yes! However, it seems it is only possible through tedious study of the undocumented source code of the commenting system. Today, the commenting system does not work with all Firefox-like browsers. There seems to be particular requirements made upon them which I have not yet discovered.
[...] Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Is it an official build (= may be called Firefox without fear of mozilla.com chasing you), if it doesn't include the bug-reporting tool you mentioned?
Also, Ututo-e has included non-free-software in the past and seem not to publish anything like debian's bug tracker to see what the current situation is. I would not rely on them as a certification yet.
Hope that explains,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MJ Ray wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
[...] Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Is it an official build (= may be called Firefox without fear of mozilla.com chasing you), if it doesn't include the bug-reporting tool you mentioned?
Just a FYI for everyone here; earlier this year I was talking to Gerv at Mozilla about these things.
Unless Mozilla builds the code or officially agrees to distribution it's not Firefox (which is a trademark). The code built without the trademark is called the Mozilla Mail client, hence if you compile the Mozilla code it will report itself as 'Mozilla Mail/News Client'.
IIRC correctly early versions included with Ubuntu reported as 'Mozilla Mail/News Client'. Now it's all Firefox and Thunderbird there.
Shane :)
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk wrote:
Just a FYI for everyone here; earlier this year I was talking to Gerv at Mozilla about these things. [...]
And I'm sorry to inform everyone that "Gerv is not responsible at this time for trademark permissions or approvals" (says Mike Connor in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=59 ) and Gerv's reasonably fair approach to free software is apparently being systematically reversed by the Mozilla Corporation, right at a time that maximises disruption to the debian project. It seems that MozCorp wants veto rights over debian package maintenance and release policies, else the browser can't be Firefox.
Go IceWeasel!
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:57:42AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Go IceWeasel!
Let's hope it works with the GPLv3 comments system ;)
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Also, could you use EBCDIC? It takes alot of processing power to convert your very long message from ASCII to EBDCDIC.
I don't use evil proprietary formats like EBCDIC.
EBCDIC is not a propietary format.
Though OT: A Google search finds quite a lot of pages that claim so. Are they all wrong, or has it changed recently?
(c) The situation is not even like in (b), because not all free browsers are supported, only a particular one.
You are free to modify the supported browser into something that fits your needs, so that your favourite browser works with the commenting process. Would you like to do that?
No, I wouldn't like to, because it's quite some extra work just to submit a comment. One could take it a step further, and make a web site that works with *no* existing browser, and just (poorly) document the required functionality. Then anyone could modify any free browser to access tht web site. This way, the web site would give an advantage to free browsers (though not exclusively, as one could also write their own non-free browser), but I can't see any way this would be useful for either the site or the FS movement. The gplv3 site is not quite like this, but it would get close if your advice was an official recommendation.
(d) And even this one, in some forms, is not really free as MJR has reminded us. (According to RMS in http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353, "To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code."
What he means is that the binaries as distributed by Mozilla are not-free (they include a non-free bug reporting tool). Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Even assuming that build is really free (which would contradict RMS's statement, when read strictly, but I can't comment on it myself ATM); since not everyone uses Utoto-e, it wouldn't change that, as I wrote, the requirement might have made some people use a not (entirely) free browser to view this site, instead of a fully free one they might have otherwise used.
Frank
Also, could you use EBCDIC? It takes alot of processing power to convert your very long message from ASCII to EBDCDIC.
I don't use evil proprietary formats like EBCDIC.
EBCDIC is not a propietary format.
Though OT: A Google search finds quite a lot of pages that claim so. Are they all wrong, or has it changed recently?
Do a search on `EBCDIC table' or something similar.
(d) And even this one, in some forms, is not really free as MJR has reminded us. (According to RMS in http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353, "To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code."
What he means is that the binaries as distributed by Mozilla are not-free (they include a non-free bug reporting tool). Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Even assuming that build is really free (which would contradict RMS's statement, when read strictly, but I can't comment on it myself ATM);
I don't see why it would. If you compile Firefox, then you can distribute it, so then someone else won't need to compile it.
since not everyone uses Utoto-e, it wouldn't change that, as I wrote, the requirement might have made some people use a not (entirely) free browser to view this site, instead of a fully free one they might have otherwise used.
One of the many reasons why GNUzilla and IceWeasel exists, http://www.gnu.org/s/gnuzilla/. That page also briefly explains the other problems with Firefox (even if you compile it from source, it can install non-free plugins).
Cheers
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
(d) And even this one, in some forms, is not really free as MJR has reminded us. (According to RMS in http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=353, "To use Firefox as free software, you have to build it yourself from the source code."
What he means is that the binaries as distributed by Mozilla are not-free (they include a non-free bug reporting tool). Ututo-e for example contains a Firefox, you don't need to compile that your self.
Even assuming that build is really free (which would contradict RMS's statement, when read strictly, but I can't comment on it myself ATM);
I don't see why it would.
He said you *have* to build it from source, without mentioning the possibility of getting a version built from source via other routes. This might imply that such distribution is illegal (as would be the case, e.g., with a GPL program requiring a non-GPL-compatible library; you can build it and use it yourself, but you can't distribute the binary at all). As I said, this is reading the statement strictly, but considering that RMS is not entirely unfamiliar with such fine distinctions, one could come to this conclusion.
One of the many reasons why GNUzilla and IceWeasel exists, http://www.gnu.org/s/gnuzilla/. That page also briefly explains the other problems with Firefox (even if you compile it from source, it can install non-free plugins).
It's good they exist, but it's not really a reason for the web site requiring Firefox. In fact, if this requirement was because of freedom (and not accidental due to the site's implementation, as I suppose), they would probably require IceWeasel right away (or some other free browser).
Ward Vandewege wrote:
For the record, I've tested:
Firefox Konqueror Safari (on OS X)
All of these browsers work.
Nobody doubts that these browsers work (-; you know, in a discussion with Alfred M. Szmidt you have to be very careful about your choice of words), but the comments page doesn't. I just tried with Konqueror (as installed in Knoppix 4.0.2) -- it shows the colours, but when I press "c" after marking some text, nothing happens. MJR has reported that it doesn't even work with Firefox when changing the name string.
Frank
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 05:21:19AM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
BTW, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html says: "The GPLv3 comment system is actively being developed, and its browser compatibility is currently limited." So this means, according to the usual meaning of "currently", that the issue will be resolved, does it? I just wonder if this is going to happen before the end of the process (seeing that it's been at least several months now since the issue was first brought up), otherwise it would be of no value.
This page is out of date.
I've looked at the comment system, using The Supported Browser(tm),
For the record, I've tested:
Firefox Konqueror Safari (on OS X)
All of these browsers work.
I think that IE also works, but I don't have a way to test that. If someone does, feel free :)
Admittedly, what's missing on the GPLv3 site is a short 'about' page for the comments system that states which browsers work and which do not. That page should be linked to from the 'e-mail' page. That link should replace that cryptic 'browser compatibility is currently limited' line.
I'll follow up on that to make it happen.
Thanks, Ward.
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 21:46 -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
For the record, I've tested:
Firefox Konqueror Safari (on OS X)
I've used Epiphany (ubuntu package) today to browse the comments and submit a new one and it also worked just fine. I browsed the page, tried to load comments from highlighted text, opened and closed popups, clicked on 'read more', added a comment. All of this worked.
Are there 'freeness issues' also on epiphany? Can we recommend it as a reference browser?
thanks stef
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
Are there 'freeness issues' also on epiphany? Can we recommend it as a reference browser?
No, AFAIK there are not. Galeon and Kazehakase, my favourite browser, also work (although I receive a warning about a running script which has to be stopped, I think that's harmless).
On 25/09/06, Ottavio Caruso pr0f3ss0r1492@yahoo.com wrote:
I invite the guy who said this at the Greater London User the 22nd of April to confirm that himself here. What he said was: "In the Free Software movement there are lot of nutcases". We were discussing Free Software Evangelism.
Oh, you are talking about Shanes talk at GLLUG? I wish you had been more specific about your reference before.
I think you are mistaken. To paraphrase Shanes talk:
"When we talk to the public about Free Software we should be careful to put our points across carefully. Shoving a leaflet and a GNU/Linux CD into an unsuspecting users hand and ranting about Free Software in an aggressive way makes them think you are a nutcase"
Those aren't his exact words but thats the intent of his message.
His talk was about perception and alternative ways to engage the unaware public. To say he referred to members of the FSF as nutcases is wholly inaccurate.
Hope to help.
Simon Morris wrote:
"When we talk to the public about Free Software we should be careful to put our points across carefully. Shoving a leaflet and a GNU/Linux CD into an unsuspecting users hand and ranting about Free Software in an aggressive way makes them think you are a nutcase"
I agree with this and it has nothing to do with the accusation. This is the reason why RMS and other great speakers begin their speeches with the basics instead of jumping to the conclusions. I heard a lot of people "complaining" that RMS is like a robot, repeating one and the same thing over and over. Well, if the general public would understand at least some part of what he says, he wouldn't be repeating it. They call him an "extremist" and a "nutcase" instead.
But subscribers to this list are not "unsuspecting users" that have no clue about Free Software, am I right?
On 25/09/06, Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org wrote:
Simon Morris wrote:
"When we talk to the public about Free Software we should be careful to put our points across carefully. Shoving a leaflet and a GNU/Linux CD into an unsuspecting users hand and ranting about Free Software in an aggressive way makes them think you are a nutcase"
I agree with this and it has nothing to do with the accusation. This is the reason why RMS and other great speakers begin their speeches with the basics instead of jumping to the conclusions. I heard a lot of people "complaining" that RMS is like a robot, repeating one and the same thing over and over. Well, if the general public would understand at least some part of what he says, he wouldn't be repeating it. They call him an "extremist" and a "nutcase" instead.
It's a hard sell for a lot of people. Amazing that a concept as well known as "Freedom" can be so hard for people to understand.
RMS is a good salesman :-)
But subscribers to this list are not "unsuspecting users" that have no clue about Free Software, am I right?
I think that is a fair statement. I was explaining to Otto where he had gone wrong in interpreting Shanes statement
Thanks
--- Simon Morris sm@beerandspeech.org wrote:
Oh, you are talking about Shanes talk at GLLUG? I wish you had been more specific about your reference before.
Shane and Simon,
thank you for intervening and thank you for taking me out of the pain of quoting people myself. It is good that some sentences have been quoted because the perception of what you say, regardless of the validity of the content, do matter when it deals with 'evangelism'.
I apologize to all the subscribers of this list for accepting ams' personal provocations. I should not have, having already witnessed his erratic rants against honest people involved with honest projects (one example: MJ Ray).
But the fact remains that ams is a known member of the FSF and many in the FSF have the same attitude. That leaves me the option of either ignoring or ranting back.
I will choose the first option, and I would like to thank many of you which I'll probably meet somewhere else and with which I'd like to maintain a frank and friendly relationship.
Ottavio
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I apologize to all the subscribers of this list for accepting ams' personal provocations.
Cut it out, I have not provoced you in any way. You claim to be mature and old, yet you resort to profanity, ad hominem attacks and refuse to answer a simple question, why the same old and mature people are the ones who implement injust laws, you claimed that you know what freedom really means, educate us of what it really means then. This is not much to ask for, and I am geniunly interested in the answer.
I should not have, having already witnessed his erratic rants against honest people involved with honest projects (one example: MJ Ray).
I do not know if MJ is honest or not since I have never meet him, I do know that he spreads much FUD about the GPL, GFDL, GPLv3 commenting process, etc here. There is no 'ranting' going about by correcting him about the misconceptions he has, misconceptiosn I think most people on this list agree with.
But the fact remains that ams is a known member of the FSF and many in the FSF have the same attitude.
This is simply untrue, I am not a member of the FSF, never claimed to be, or otherwise have implied it. I like many people on this list share the views of the FSF, the FSF Europe is after all a sister orgnisation of the FSF. The attitude in both foundations is very much the same, freedom is essential, and any way our rights are diminished is not acceptable. That you spread FUD about some absurd split between the FSF and FSFe is quite dishonest to members and supports of both the FSF and FSFe.
Cheers.
ams@gnu.org wrote: [...]
I do not know if MJ is honest or not since I have never meet him, I do know that he spreads much FUD about the GPL, GFDL, GPLv3 commenting process, etc here. [...]
You know no such thing. I ask that you cease and desist from posting this type of personal attack on this list.
I believe the FSF should not promote non-free-software licences like FDL, but I accept we will never all agree about that - it's a belief, not FUD. The GPLv3 comment system is not anybrowser-accessible and that's not FUD either - it says as much on the site.
Finally, I have never spread FUD about the GPL. Much of my work is under GPL - I'd not spread FUD about a licence I use a lot.
Hoping this is an end to it,
I do not know if MJ is honest or not since I have never meet him, I do know that he spreads much FUD about the GPL, GFDL, GPLv3 commenting process, etc here. [...]
You know no such thing. I ask that you cease and desist from posting this type of personal attack on this list.
Since I have not posted any kind of personal attack towards you here, there is nothing to "cease and desist". You might want to think for a couple of seconds before you posting an accusation like this, the same applies to me though.
I believe the FSF should not promote non-free-software licences like FDL, but I accept we will never all agree about that - it's a belief, not FUD.
This is clearly FUD, the GFDL is not a non-free software license, it is not even a software license. It is a free documentation license. The FSF has never promoted a non-free software license, and will (hopefully!) never do such a thing, implying that they do is spreading FUD. If you look at the four freedoms of software, they speak about "program", a manual is clearly not a program by any long shot.
The GPLv3 comment system is not anybrowser-accessible and that's not FUD either - it says as much on the site.
Claiming that it is in your opinion unusable because it requires a specific set of tools to be used is on the other hand FUD. There is nothing wrong with requiring a set of tools to use something.
Finally, I have never spread FUD about the GPL. Much of my work is under GPL - I'd not spread FUD about a licence I use a lot.
I stand corrected on that point, thank you.
Cheers.
the GFDL is not a non-free software license,
The GPLv3 process is not as open as it should be
Guys, enough repeating always the same thing. End it here. There is no point in repeating over and over on this list the same argument. All made their points pretty clear. Stop the flame now.
thank you stef