From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7656 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2003 00:44:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7613 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2003 00:44:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO egil.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 00:44:29 -0000 Received: from zack by egil.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18brxK-0008E0-00; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:44:26 -0800 To: Joe Buck Cc: Richard Kenner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free From: Zack Weinberg Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030123150602.A15387@synopsys.com> (Joe Buck's message of "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:06:02 -0800") Message-ID: <87hebzqsut.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090014 (Oort Gnus v0.14) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) References: <10301232209.AA22439@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20030123150602.A15387@synopsys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01071.txt.bz2 Joe Buck writes: > Zack, try to watch your tone. Language like "I am not interested in > rehashing the debate", or "assertions that there is nothing wrong with the > status quo will be taken as evidence in *favor*", come across as arrogant, > and this is not the first time that you have used such an approach. ... > Under the GCC Project's rules, demonstration of the existence of > controversy on a "political" matter isn't an argument in favor of a > change; just the opposite: it means that the SC must vote on the > issue, and it takes a 3/4 vote to make a change. I apologize for my tone. My grouchiness level is elevated at the moment for reasons totally unrelated to the subject of discussion, and this bled into the message. What I was trying to get across was simply that I don't see a need to reprise the debate over whether the FDL meets the DFSG here; it's been done to death elsewhere. The controversy here is external to the GCC Project. The argument is strictly speaking between thee Debian project and the drafters of the FDL. My belief is that the GCC project should avoid getting into the argument, and my patch was intended to achieve such avoidance - no more. > Nevertheless, if you can talk RMS into a resolution that both he and > the Debian folks can live with, more power to you. Come back when > you've convinced him; I hope you're a patient man. I have contacted him, but I don't plan to try very hard to convince him. If we have some assertion on his part that we can point at if and when Debian decides that our manuals definitely don't fit their guidelines, that will hopefully serve my goal (staying out of the argument) well enough; and if it doesn't, we can worry about it then. zw