Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-09 10:11:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no
> > distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash?
>
> Not in the way under discussion here: neither is free software.
If nobody here see any distinction between the GNU Emacs manual and
Macromedia Flash, I do not think that an agreement can still be
possible.
> > This is not at all absurd. When you tell people they can find
> > non-free software at -this address-, you advertise for this
> > non-free software.
>
> So FSF advertises for SCO, according to your reasoning? After all,
> they give an address for SCO.
Do the FSF tell "go there get the SCO brand new software"?
> I argued that links are not recommendations by countering your
> apparent proposition that any link is recommendation.
I never said that, please quote me saying that or forget it.
> > and we're about to claim that GFLed documentation, which may not at
> > all having any invariant part, is non-free stuff.
>
> No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software.
Is this mail a software? If I put this mail in a CVS, does it make
this mail a software?
You can claim that documentation are not free software because there
are indeed not software, free or not.
Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation
without any invariant parts?
(apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose
problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed)
> Whether or not it is "free stuff" is abstract and difficult to discuss
> in the absence of a "free stuff definition". People have tried during
> this thread, but generalising from the free software definition does
> seem to reach the conclusion that FDL-covered works are not free
> stuff. If you are careful, you may show that the documentation part
> is free stuff, but you cannot take the documentation part alone from
> the work, so the work is still not free stuff. This is not directly
> relevant, though.
Do you mean that it's not possible to just distribute a GFDLed
documentation alone?
I do not understand what "work" refers to, what "documentation part"
refers to. And you noticed that the expression "free stuff" is
ambiguous but you use it. Puzzling.
> > It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation
> > without invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting
> > a copy of the documentation add invariant sections.
>
> ...in the absence of other problems, this would not be enough to
> prevent the original from being free, as you correctly explain.
Ok. So we can get over this invariant problems for manuals/doc which
have no invariant section (yes, it exists).
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: