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

Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL

Georg, continuing to miss the point entirely, wrote:
>I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
>important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
>that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
>persons Copyright. GNU Free Documentation License or no.

Sure.  This is true of any copyrighted material -- unless the document was 
licenced under a *free* license.  Which the GNU FDL *isn't*.  Are you 
listening?  We're saying that to be a *free* document (free as in speech, not 
just free as in beer), we must have the right to reuse sections without 
having other sections gratuituously dragged along.  
The GNU FDL, applied with invariant sections, makes a *non-free* (as in 
speech, not as in beer) document.  That doesn't make it evil or anything.  It 
makes it *non-free*.  Not everything needs to be free, but it's really 
obnoxious for the FDL to call itself "free" when it's so far from free.

Are you speaking for the FSF as an organization?  If so, I would like 
explicit confirmation of the following:

* The FSF believes there is nothing wrong with GFDL documents containing 
invariant sections.
* The FSF is not going to change the GFDL to allow the removal of invariant 
* The FSF is going to continue to promote the usage of the GFDL for software 
* The FSF is going to continue to promote the usage of invariant sections 
with the GFDL.

If we have confirmation of these four things, then we know that there will be 
no agreement between Debian and the FSF.  Debian can go ahead and put the GNU 
Emacs manual, GCC manual, and Glibc manuals in non-free.  The only reason 
they're not there now is that Debian has been hoping that the FSF will get 
the point.

I really hope someone at the FSF will get the point.

--Nathanael Nerode

Reply to: