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
conditions.
Which one is more free ?
Mike
Reply to: