Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
> to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1].
That may be clear to you, but should we sacrifice the freedom to adapt
the manuals to serve our needs in order to help technical writers earn
money? Why not sacrifice a similar freedom in order to allow large
splash screens with the software and help software writers earn money
by writing free software?
I also have seen little evidence that the technical writers earn more
money from writing a FDL-covered work. I suspect that the FDL allows
the *publishers* to earn more money than they would from a DSL (or maybe
even GPL) covered work, but I have no evidence for that. Maybe someone
has the numbers, but it's not a useful branch of debate at the moment
because no-one with the numbers is giving them and I'm rather stuck on
how to collect them.
To me, the next step looks like either:
1. FSF gives more information about the FDL;
or 2. leader@debian or suitable delegate publishes a statement
summarising current position and FDL-covered work cannot be in
main just now.
I'd prefer 1 to happen, but 2 seems more likely. Both FSF and Debian
agree that FDL-covered works are not free software, so it shouldn't
cause a new rift: the groups already seem to disagree on whether it is
reasonable to ask for a manual to be free software too.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Reply to: