Re: GFDL

[Fedor Zuev <fedor@earth.crust.irk.ru>]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, D. Starner wrote:

> Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> wrote:

> > Do you know many modern (not public domain)  political texts
> > of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?

> When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
> that I printed it out and showed it to a friend (who was less
> impressed.) At the time Debian started, and even now to some
> extent, free software was a drop in the bucket compared to the
> vast sea of non-free software.

	First of all, this picture may reflect your personal
experience, but in general, it is not correct. Free software was not
genuinely invented in the world of proprietary software. In fact,
the contrary is true. Initially, back in 50s-60s-70s all software
was free software. Proprietary software come into being only after
computer programs was copyrighted. Computer programs was copyrighted
relatively late, in 1976 year in USA, in 1991 year in Russia and
maybe even later in some other countries. Free software movement
and, especially, GNU project, was founded very shortly after
proprietary software becomes dominant, as direct and obvious answer.

	This lead us to the important point. Free software is not a
gift. It is not a benefaction from a generous programmers to a
clueless users.  Free software is a reconstruction of normal mode of
operation on top of [unjust] copyright law.

> I fail to see why the fact that
> most political texts, like most programs, are non-free should
> influence us, especially given that we could remove every political
> text from Debian without a problem, and the only ones that anyone
> would really miss would probably be the free ones in bible-kjv.

	The same (see above) point is not correct for political
speech.  Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
mode of operation and never was. So, when you demand DFSG-compliant
(free-censorable)  political texts, you not help to recover the
effective and honest mode of operation, but create purely fictional
requirement, which is not justified by any actual need, and is not
backed by any actual practice.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:


> Some might also miss the 'anarchism' package, which is also free (and
> unlike the Bible and miscfiles, is modern, copyrighted, changes often,
> expresses very definitely a political opinion, and is released entirely
> under the GNU GPL).

	Not exactly. Anarchism FAQ is not a political statement, but
heavily technical manual about anarchist theory. Its purpose is not
to reflect opinion of any human or group of humans (AFAIK, there in
no human in Universe who will approve _all_ statements in this FAQ),
but education and reference about one of social theories.