Re: A possible GFDL compromise
>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship". Get a clue, or a
>>dictionary.
>
> Heh.
>
> "Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
>distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
>the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
>freedom!" Agree?
Now you've changed the terms of your argument; I guess you admit that it's
not 'censorship'. Good. :-)
In response to your new, different argument:
When I distribute GPL'ed binaries, I do not in fact have to distribute source
with them. I could also distribute, for instance:
* a written offer to provide source
* a copy of the written offer to provide source which I received
But more importantly, if I make a *modified version* of a GPL'ed program, I
only have to distribute source to my *modified version*. I do *not* have to
distribute the source code to the FSF's version of GCC when I distribute my
hacked-up version!
If I make a *modified version* of a GFDL'ed manual, no matter how
dramatically altered, I still have to distribute the *original* Invariant
Sections.
The situations are not similar.
I will not reply to any further nonsense on your part. If you have something
sensible and rational to say, go ahead.
Reply to: