Re: documentation eq software ?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> moa@dionysos:~$ ls --version
> ls (coreutils) 5.0
> Écrit par Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.
> Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Ce logiciel est libre; voir les sources pour les conditions de
> reproduction. AUCUNE garantie n'est donnée; tant pour des raisons
> COMMERCIALES que pour RÉPONDRE À UN BESOIN PARTICULIER.
> Who's this "author"?
"Authors", then. Please don't degenerate to pedanticism when the meaning
> > ? I've seen several pieces of software which made political statements.
> > The author obviously felt that doing so was important. Should the GPL
> > protect those opinions?
> The GPL is about software. And the main purpose of a software is not
> to make a political stand.
The main purpose of documentation is not to make a political stand. Nor
is it to describe why the software was written. Some people wish to
include this in their documentation, and some people wish to include
political statements in their software. The GFDL protects the first of
these - the GPL does not protect the second. Why do you believe that
they are different?
(Talking about "Primary purpose" is unimportant here - the issue is the
importance that the author of the software places on preservation of
those opinions. The GFDL allows the author to place that importance at a
level higher than freedom to modify, whereas the GPL doesn't. This is
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org