Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

[Jean Louis]

* Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> [2019-10-27 16:33]:
> Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 13:56:00 -0400, a ecrit:
> > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> > stance on an issue.
> > 
> > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> > deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger.
> 
> No, this shows that the philosophy is not that clearly defined: what
> are these invariant sections in the documentation, are they really free
> software?

For example, I cannot say, and it is morally not just to say that
Samuel Thibault said: "what are these invariant sections in the
documentation, are they really proprietary software?" -- because it
was your opinion, I cannot say that you said "proprietary" when you
said "free".

But I can distribute your opinion, and I am free to distribute it.

There people who think that GNU software is not free because it does
not allow binary only distribution without sources. Those are other
movements, not free software movement. Those are other thought
directions, but it is not free software movement.

Thus you may have opinion that GNU FDL is not enough free because
opinions or invariant sections are "not free enough" because receiver
would not be able to state that somebody else said what person did not
say -- then I leave it to you.

I know and I see and I can observe, analyze and conclude that GNU FDL
was well formed document, legally well thought. It can be subject of
discussions, but only if you are lawyer and have legal opinion on
that, then I would give to such statements "invariant is not free"
much more weight.

-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis