Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Alex Romosan <romosan@sycorax.lbl.gov>:
> WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
> on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
> it's _his_ opinion and as such it
> should not be altered.
However, there is a difference between changing someone's opinion and
editing a text that originally expressed someone's opinion, as the
following edited quotation is intended to illustrate:
> it's not _his_ opinion and as such it
> should be altered.
(I know you didn't say that.)
> this doesn't make it non-free.
How does that follow from the definition of "free" applicable in this
context? http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
> this thread is getting weirder and weirder...
It certainly is!
Reply to: