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

Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.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.

What's weird is people arguing that an organization whose sole raison
d'être is the distribution of *software* should argue for the continued
inclusion of other things in Debian on the GROUNDS that they are not

> 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.

You're the one who's missed the point.  The issue at hand is not whether
we have a *right* to modify someone's manifesto; the license clearly
states that we do not.  The issue is whether we should be distributing
such a document that we don't have the right to modify.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpdu5fzR803d.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: