Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
>> WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
>> on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and as such it
>> should not be altered. this doesn't make it non-free.
>> this thread is getting weirder and weirder...
> If I can't change it, it's non-free.
> There's nothing "weird" about this simple, fundamental concept.
what's weird is people applying the free-software concept to things
other than software. the fundamental concept you seem to fail to grasp
is the very difference between software (meant to provide some sort of
functionality through the implementation of some machine instructions)
and a manifesto (meant to state publicly the views of the issuer). the
dfsg is about software (instead of using the acronym, maybe you guys
should spell out what dfsg stands for: debian free _software_ guide.
fsf stands for: free _software_ foundation. it's all about software).
you don't have the right to modify anybody's manifesto. if you
disagree with their ideas, write a rebuke. you only have the right to
modify _software_ licenced under the gpl.
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
| advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with |
| automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion |
| and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |