[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free



David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> JérÎme Marant <jmarant@free.fr> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
>>> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead
>>> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD
>>> utilities all around.
>>>
>>> But the current course is pure duplicity.
>>
>> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents
>> under the GFDL makes documentation free.
>
> Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had
> been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally
> be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom?

It is irrelevant.  Invariant sections restrict freedom to modify
GFDL software.  There is not much to be proven.

>> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly
>> acceptable, while they would not with GPL?
>
> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions.  Remove software from the GNU
> project from Debian.  Free software with unfree documentation is a
> sham.  If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't
> be used like free software, and you should remove it, too.

But documentation *is* software.  As I was corrected right by Manoj in
past discussions, everything that's not hardware is software.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software

Hence GFDL with invariant sections is not a free *software* license.

-- 
Jérôme Marant



Reply to: