Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
> > > for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
> > [become free _SOFTWARE_]
> No, he didn't say that, he said "become free". The freedoms that are
> important for software are also important for documentation. This
> has been pointed out numerous times, and I've yet to see any interesting
> arguments otherwise.
Debian is about Free _Software_.
It's pretty clear that GNU does not consider that
political/philosophical/historical texts, which can be part of a
documentation, should be ruled like Free _Software_.
Debian at the contrary only speaks about Free _Software_ and does not
define how should be ruled political/philosophical/historical texts.
Despite the fact that many people in Debian consider that the world
should be ruled by the Free Software definition originated from GNU,
it's not something obvious and something that Free Software
contributors needs to believe in -- because it's out of the scope of
_software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
To reply on-topic, to rephrase in a neutral way what was said by
The wording of Richard was clear, *there is nothing how the*
political/historical/philophical parts of the *manuals can
become free* software.
Basically, it means that probably numbers of GNU manuals will go in
non-free. It's a pity for people that think like GNU that
political/philosophical/historical texts are not software and should
not be ruled like Software, but there's nothing left to do.
It clearly reflect a major differency in spirit between GNU and
a number of Debian members:
- GNU has defined Free Software and said that this definition
is only about Software.
- Debian has defined Free Software and said that this
definition is about everything in Debian.
By extension, it means that a number of Debian members are
allowed to think that this definition is absolutely not only
Not a native english speaker: