Re: documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 22:49:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
We are not about to list
which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the
GFDL
brings are enough or not.
Enough for what? We've concluded that it's not enough to be included
in Debian under the current terms. Some of us don't think it's enough
full stop.
[...]
And you can even provide a "modified version" of the Manifesto, which
includes annotation and translation, as long as you do not modify the
original text itself, including it verbatim.
For a copy under the old "copy-only" licence this may be true. Mere
supply of the original along with commentary could be done in ways (eg
parallel texts) that did not breach its licence. I'm not sure that
it's true if you obtained a copy as an invariant section under the
FDL, because using that to produce a commentary and translation would
mean it didn't qualify as a secondary section any more. Is that
correct?
[...]
It means enhancing Cicero own text by modifying Cicero's _own
words_, as suggested before. Is that interesting?
Probably, to some marketers. Updating Cicero to see if some language
could "pull better" etc.
[...]
You have the right to make a copy of the GNU Manifesto, to annotate it
and to translate it, don't you? You only _must_ provide a complete,
unmodified, version of the GNU Manifesto, which is not a practical
problem, neither a moral problem ; is it?
It depends on your morals, I guess. It is very hard to argue about
beliefs. Maybe I believe that information should be free...
[...]
In the Manifesto, Richard Stallman speak with the first person. Who,
apart from him, can ever take advantage of modifying such text?
...and that what future generations do with it is not your call. Do
you think that the GNU manifesto should be under perpetual copyright?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Reply to: