Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
David Kastrup <email@example.com> writes:
> JÃ©rÃŽme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> David Kastrup <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
>>> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead
>>> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD
>>> utilities all around.
>>> But the current course is pure duplicity.
>> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents
>> under the GFDL makes documentation free.
> Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had
> been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally
> be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom?
It is irrelevant. Invariant sections restrict freedom to modify
GFDL software. There is not much to be proven.
>> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly
>> acceptable, while they would not with GPL?
> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU
> project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a
> sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't
> be used like free software, and you should remove it, too.
But documentation *is* software. As I was corrected right by Manoj in
past discussions, everything that's not hardware is software.
Hence GFDL with invariant sections is not a free *software* license.