On May 12, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I really don't understand the kind of opposition I'm getting in this >> issue. I know I've brought up other controversial ones, but this is >> not it. This is just meant to codify what I thought we had consensus >> on. > Nobody is opposing what you are saying but what you are saying is > getting lost in all the rhetoric questions. Oh, thank you. Can you please point at any rhetoric question in the message that started this thread? Or any rhetoric question I wrote in the entire thread? > You got to stop doing that if you want to get your message across > since trying to read your actual point in between all these is > getting tiresome. My actual point has been the same all the way from the beginning. Is Fedora committed to respecting its users' freedoms? We started down this road many years ago. But every time we get back to this topic, somehow there's some need to discuss something with the FSF, some need to clarify some point about what it would take to list Fedora on some web page, why some other distro is or is not listed on some web page that is completely out of my control. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE THINGS. What I care about is whether Fedora is willing to commit to respecting users' freedoms. In this regard, I don't care about what you think the FSF thinks. I am not the FSF. I don't even speak for FSFLA. I'm a user asking for clarifications on whether Fedora is willing to respect my freedoms. And the respect I get back is (paraphrased) "You're not helping, shut up", "Take your rhetorics elsewhere", "I didn't read what you wrote and I can prove it", "I will answer your questions if you force the FSF to change their web pages.", "I don't understand what you're talking about so I'll assume it's something I can easily disagree with." Do you have any idea of how disrespectful this is towards myself and the organization I work for? I wish you wouldn't do this any more, if you would like to remain in the receiving end of my respect. Because, you know, respect is supposed to be mutual. > Then write up a draft policy following instructions at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c30ac87c30733f0c008b146 Remember that message where I stated that I realized my proposal did not fully match current practice (non-Free firmware)? It was in reply to this. But I asked for feedback before going ahead. Is it so urgent to drive me elsewhere, or did you just miss the bit about asking for comments too? > The next board meeting when folks are back from the Red Hat summit we > will discuss things and do the changes necessary. I thought we were already discussing things. And clearly the point hasn't come across yet, and drafting the policy without having the need for it understood will do no good. So why rush me to do it? > Good that you don't want non-free documentation because GNU FDL with > invariant sections is IMO clearly non-free and I would like to clarify > the guidelines to not include such documents too. I'm not sure what goal you're trying to achieve with this, but please don't assume I support this move. And then, I shall point out that any document containing a copyleft license contains an invariant section. So are you going to ban documentation licensed under the GPL because you aren't allowed to modify the letter of the GPL in it? Doh! -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
