Re: distributable but non-free documents
> > However, free documentation *is* essential to free software.
On 4 Mar 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments.
> Or do you want Microsoft to issue new versions?...
Huh? Microsoft should be completely free, like any of us, to issue any
documents they like. Even documents that include modified versions of an
RFC.
Nobody has to accept them as replacements for the original ones, and it's
reasonable to require that nobody distribute modified versions and claim
they're original.
I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me that documentation or
media content is any different from software WRT desirability and
definition of freedom.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: