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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Friday 12 September 2003 01:48, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Then, a license allowing to freely distribute a software or a modified
> version of this software in binary form only is free, but with a practical
> inconvenience.
> If you interpret my statements by stretching the term "practical
> inconvenience" to the point where it means nothing any more, then you
> could reach this misinterpretation.  Any criterion can be distorted if
> you stretch the terms.

Where do you place the limit above which a practical inconvenience makes a 
license non-free ?
Modifying a software in its binary form is possible, and allowed by my 
hypothetical license.
Modifying a text is possible, but _not_ allowed by the GFDL under certain 
Which one is more free ?


Reply to: