Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

Richard Braakman said:

> I would also support a variant that allows some non-modifiable text,
> as long as it is [insert definition of non-technical], and as long
> as it can be removed.  That way, we can distribute editorial text
> (such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact the
> freeness of the work it accompanies.

How about the case where the GNU Manifesto is packaged by itself?

Maybe (I'm not sure on this) we should say that non-technical stuff
doesn't need to be modifiable, but it shouldn't be tied to technical
stuff.

I'd say that there is a class of stuff, including opinion pieces, some
kinds of historical pieces, etc. (roughly, secondary texts according
to the GFDL) for which there isn't the same burning need that they be
Free with a capital F: namely they don't need to be modifiable.  This
is something about which reasonable people can disagree, but I think
it's clear that there is a useful distinction to be made here.  But
personaly, I think that this is enough of a break with the letter of
the DFSG that the DFSG should be amended (which I realize may not be
feasible at the moment) if that's the way we want to do things.

But I agree that technical docs don't fall into this category of "less
freedom required," so they should be modifiable.  And they shouldn't be
tied to non-modifiable stuff.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03