Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Then what is a real lack of freedom? I could use the regex code under
    an invariant license;

If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
make it implement different behavior.  You would substantively lack
the ability to change the functionality.  That is a lack of real
freedom.

However, we do accept the license of TeX.  This license says that you
cannot modify the source file at all, but you can use a change file
when you build it.  Use of a change file give you the ability to
change the functionality as you wish, so you have freedom to change
the substantive behavior of TeX.  The fact that the original TeX
source is invariant is a considerable inconvenience, but only an
inconvenience.

    And given a big, sometimes nasty, world, he might very well not be
    free to use it. He may be in a country, or working for someone, that
    will not tolerate him espousing the message in that invariant section
    in any way.

That is possible.  In the same way, he could be in a country that
prohibits the functionality of the program, or issued a patent on it,
or have an employer who dislikes the license conditions or the license
preamble, and will not tolerate its use.  Those things can happen, and
they are real problems; but if the possibility were a reasons to say
that the program is not free, then no program would be free.

    There's a difference. The GPL is full of technical requirements. But when 
    Amnesty International releases its freedom fighting robot code under the GPL, 
    I'm free to reuse it for my baby mulcher.

You would likewise be free the GFDL-covered manual for the robot to
document your baby mulcher.  Inclusion of invariant sections, if any,
would not stop you from making it a useful and accurate manual for the
mulcher.