Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately we do not live in the ideal world.
Ah yes, the compromise speech. RMS uses it too.
> Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free. Nothing
> else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't be used, and sometimes
> we can agree to give away a bit of our freedom, which we can't (or do not
> want) utilize in exchange for other values.
>
> A good example is GPL, which takes away the freedom to use GPL sources in
> closed sources. We don't want to utilize such a freedom and we exchange
> this freedom for helping GPL to spread. Note, there still can be special
> rare cases, where such a freedom is really needed.
FGDL proponents always include references to the GPL. Linking the two
makes us who like the GPL don't see the GDFL non-freeness.
> Another example can be FDL. It takes away the freedom to modify parts that
> deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors
> political statements. Usually, there is no need to modify someones
> political statement,
That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
forces derived works to "include" the unvariant sections. Also include
the whole text of the license. Also adds license wording that works for
printed books, but is not appropriate for online references.
> and we exchange this freedom for helping FDL
> documentation to spread. Note, there still can be special rare cases, where
> such a freedom is really needed.
But you see, the _other_ conditions imposed have implications that are
not rare at all.
I love it when GFDL proponents hide these other issues and focus only
on the "trade" we make in the name of free software word spreading.
Peter
Reply to: