XPost: free.software

Alfred M. Szmidt said:

problem 1) Freedom 0: GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. ("GRFI") is stopping
GNU wget users, lynx, and cURL users from using their
browser software (wget, lynx, and curl) how they want in
the course of obtaining the GNU Radio manual.

They are not doing anything of the sort.

This is another unsubstantiated restatement of position. We know you
disagree. Everytime you simply restate it you use the fallacy of
repetition. Which is wholly uninteresting if you cannot at least
supply some rationale for your claims.

problem 2) GRFI violates the GFDL requirement that the manual be
distributed with the software.

GNU Radio's manual is not licensed under the GFDL, thus any
requirement put forth by the GFDL is irrelevant.

problem 3) GRFI violates the GFDL requirement that the manual be
available in a simple format.

GNU Radio's manual is not licensed under the GFDL, thus any
requirement put forth by the GFDL is irrelevant.

It's actually a bigger problem that the documentation is non-free.
But since this problem is being handled, it's not actually interesting
to discuss (apart perhaps from the fact that it was flagged as
non-free in directory.fsf.org before the flag was removed by Ian
Kelling).

Being unbound by the GFDL removes legal obligation, but not duty. As
we saw from Jean Louis' post, the documentation should be GFDLd:

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#License-Notices-for-Documentation

The moment the documentation comes under the GFDL, the GNU Radio
Foundation, Inc. will be violating it. We know this because there has
been no remedial actions taken or suggested w.r.t problem 2 and 3.
Until then, GRFI is evading its optional duty to deliver what
adherence to the "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software"
document entails.

IOW, the documentation relicensing is in itself insufficient.

problem 4) The GRFI is DoS attacking (and discriminating against)
users of GNU wget, lynx, and cURL.

They are not doing anything of the sort.

This is another unsubstantiated restatement of position. You're not
listening, and you've done this before:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/security-discuss/2017-03/msg00057.html

Without countering the evidence that was posted, your statement is
only a waste of everyones time. Please have some respect for readers
who don't want to see child-like bickering. We need to see logical
arguments, they need to articulate a meaningful response with relevant
quoting, and they need to be supported.

--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)