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

Re: migrating away from the FDL

> By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation?  If so, please
> note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
> freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
> Let me quote the relevant paragraph:
> > Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms.
> > It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do.
> > ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it
> > (functionally), and redistribute modified versions.  It is ok to
> > have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't
> > prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you
> > want to make.
> Note the provisos "functionally" and "substantively".  Based on this,
> I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
> unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and no other
> restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient.  I haven't
> seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet.

If you want to know what rms consider as free software and what he do
not consider as free software, please take a look at <http://www.gnu.org>,
especially <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>

You do not have to guess, to "believe", what position he may defends
because it's already explicitely stated. 


Mathieu Roy
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: