Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

[Samuel Thibault]

Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 14:10:46 -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?
> 
> Just like software isn't an mammal, it would be wrong to apply what
> applies to mammals as it does to software, so making the case that
> manuals are software

I typed too fast indeed, scratch "software" to put "documentation" there
instead. Software and documentation indeed have different effect on the
control you have over the software.

> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

That'd rather be https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html
which actually talks about invariant sections.

Again, I don't think it is the time and place to actually discuss the
question I raised above, I just mean that yes, this part is questioning
even after reading all of the gnu.org explanations, e.g. if the glibc
abortion joke had been in a invariant section.

Samuel