Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Dylan Thurston <email@example.com> writes:
> While I agree with the stance that this documentation is not, in
> fact, Free, I'd like to point out that the GFDL does not reflect any
> change in RMS's stance: the Emacs manual has always been licensed
> with invariant sections, for instance. Richard Stallman's idea of
> Freedom might differ from yours, but it hasn't changed very much.
I realize that. But, at the very least, I wasn't aware of his
position before this came out however many months ago. And what's
more, I think it's fair to say that he's taking a more obvious stand
on the issue than he did before. Not that I'm saying that this is a
new agenda on his part or anything, but the licensing of documentation
has become a bigger issue than it once was.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03