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

Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files

Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

> You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head. In a world of
> copyrights, all works are non-free *by default*; it is only if they
> meet certain requirements, as detailed in the DFSG, that we consider
> them free. Are you saying that the WHY-FREE op-ed piece should be
> considered free because the DFSG doesn't say anything about opinion
> pieces?

_you_ have turned the DFSG on its head by taking something meant for
software and applying it to non software. i've read the DFSG now a
million times and all i can see is references to software and source
code. it doesn't say anything about documentation, nor does it say
anything about being able to modify political manifestos. show me
where in the DFSG there is a mention of anything other than software.

why should be distribute WHY-FREE? because it is our raison d'être.
with out it debian wouldn't even exist and we wouldn't be having this
conversation. generalizing a little bit, emacs is not just a
text-editor (or mail reader, compiler, oh well, operating system),
emacs is a political statement and as such it should include the
WHY-FREE manifesto.


| 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. |

Reply to: