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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:

>> 	No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
>> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
>> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
>> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_.

>No, free software is about freedom for *everyone*, regardless of
>stupid labels *you* invent. I'm a "user", "author", and
>"distributor"; do I only need 1/3rd as much freedom as a normal
>user? I sure hope not.

	You can disagree whith this statement, but it is absurd to
claim that I invent it.

------- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -------

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

     * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
     * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
	your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
	precondition for this.

     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
	neighbor (freedom 2).

     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
	improvements to the public, so that the whole community
	benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
        precondition for this.

>> It is in the best interest of users to receive unstripped version of
>> manual.

>It is also in the best interest of users to recieve a manual they
>can use, modify, and distribute, like they want, provided they
>prevent no one else from doing so.

	They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means.

	Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.

>> It is also in the best interest of authors.

>Except the GFDL takes freedom away from authors. What it *adds* is
>not freedom, but control - the original author of the document is
>exercising control over all subsequent authors and users.

	Removing a section from document does not create autiorship
for derivative work, btw. Because, "the copyright in a compilation
or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the
author of such work" (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything,
you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed.

>Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's
>fix that.


	So, now I understand, why you think that almost everyone
agrees with you. :-)

Reply to: