RMS, There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important, which you elided from your replies. I am intensely interested in your answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could take some time to answer them. Your answers to my other questions have been, for the most part, quite elucidating. Thank you. [RMS:] > I thought about the ethics of this issue long ago, and decided that > invariant sections are legitimate. Where is your ethical analysis articulated? It would be particularly helpful if you would explain if and why the arguments presented in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html do not apply to documentation as they do to software. [RMS:] > We want to encourage widespread use of the FDL for two reasons: > > 1. It leads to a pool of text that can be copied between manuals. > > 2. It is (or at least ought to be) good for helping commercial > publishers succeed publishing free manuals. I do not understand how the traditional GNU documentation license, without their proto-invariant sections, does not achieve either of the above goals. Perhaps there are other reasons, not enumerated above, that you would like to see the GNU FDL widely adopted? > Those are our goals for wanting the GNU FDL to be widely used, but > those are not our only goals in choosing licenses for our manuals. What are the other goals? -- G. Branden Robinson | It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux | screaming mob pounding on a greasy email@example.com | spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Description: PGP signature