Re: doc license section

[Pierre Bernatchez]

Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > > Be aware that the feeling on the debian-legal mailing list is that the
> > > GFDL is not sufficiently free for materials in Debian [...]
> >
> > Yes, but I'm going with the FSF here, simply because Guile is a GNU
> > package.
>
>
> To elaborate a bit: I don't see how Guile is different from any other
> GNU package when it comes to the license of its manual.  When there
> are convincing reasons why Guile shouldn't use the FDL, no GNU package
> should use it.  This issue should be decided by the 'upper
> management', for all of GNU...
This may be off topic, but since I did not bring
up the subject, I am justified in voicing a
dissenting opinion before going back
to my role of guile beginner lurking the list.

'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.

GNU's role is to provide advice, guidelines and
a rallying point, not dictating decisions.
Leadership not autocracy, the decisions are for
participants to arrive at by consensus.

GFDL raises questions for which adequate answers
have yet to be given.

Any knowing programmer infers from the word 'source' the
meaning 'source and accompanying explanations and instructions'.
So libre source includes libre documentation.

Documentation which is published under more restrictive license
further restricts the combination 'source and instructions'

What's most unclear in the GFDL, is the reason behind these
further restrictions.  The Debian group (of which I am not
a member to date) have registered some objections to the
GFDL which at least appear valid and well founded.

Your comment implies to me that rather than getting bogged
down in legal jargon religious wars, you would prefer to pick
a default choice, get on with the real work and let the
debate find its way to a conclusion somewhere else.

At first glance a sound proposition.
But you are picking the wrong default.

The correct default, pending further debate should be
the status quo, what our community has been doing all along,
publishing both source and its documentation under the same
license.

Adopting this current change in licensing as the new
default choice without further debate  is tantamount to
blind obedience.

The success of the libre software movement hinges on people
thinking for themselves.