Re: The old DFSG-lemma again...
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> Yes, if those sections are not severable, or if the FSF is unwilling to
> additionally license the manual under alternative terms that wouldn't
> run afoul of the standard I am proposing.
But I think this means that we should reconsider the standard you're
I don't think there is anything inimical to the notion that author's
works should be preserved intact; at least, nothing contrary to free
software--as long as we are talking about non-functional parts of the
For documentation, anything which describes the operation of the
program needs to change along with the program, and accordingly, we
should insist that such sections are not restricted in such a way.
But the notion that "modification is part of freedom" has inherently
to do with the question of *what* we are asking to be able to modify.
When it's functional, without a doubt, modification is part of freedom
: and so for software, and for documentation that describes software,
this is true.
But when it comes to other things, I think it's perfectly reasonable
for us to distribute as free things whose terms don't permit