Re: Can the FSF be corrupted
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>
> > You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
>
> I do.
>
> > I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
>
> The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
> software world, sure.
>
> But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on
> www.gnu.org are contradicted by the GFDL. Richard always focused on
> software and not on book and even if he ackownledged that software
> documentation must be free.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
: The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
: software: it is a matter of giving all users certain
: freedoms. Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
: permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
: on-line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.
:
: [cut a bit about different needs for non-manual books]
:
: But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
: for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right
: to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
: conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
: accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
: which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or
: more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they
: change the program, does not fill our community's needs.
Reply to: