Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant sections, it
    can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the freedom to run,
    study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or the freedom to run,
    study, redistribute and improve for only those that agree with your
    philosophy, and will not remove it from any accompanying documentation.

The GFDL's permissions apply to everyone, regardless of whether they
agree with philosophy expressed in the invariant sections.  Those who
disagree might choose not to exercise the freedom, but the GFDL does
not deny it to them.

    If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them from
    doing so.

I agree completely.  The GFDL does not prohibit people from expressing
their own views.  It only says that those who redistribute our manuals
must include our statements of our views.  If they wish, they can also
say they disagree with our views.

    > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
    > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".

    Is a manual the right place for advocacy? Isn't the purpose of a manual
    to document a piece of software?

We try to make everything do multiple duty if possible.