Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Would you accept a similar restriction in a software license, and
    still call the license free?  (Say, one which said "you must always
    distribute this function as part of the system".)

Yes, and the case of TeX is an example.  It requires more than just
one function that you must include.  I think Debian regards this
license as free.

    Ah!  So I think we have made progress.  This is just what people have
    said about why a practical inconvenience, sometimes, makes a thing
    nonfree.  Now the question is: how impractical does it have to be?

It has to be prohibitively impractical in real cases.  The
inconveniences that occur in some cases with the GFDL are not
prohibitive.

    Debian especially is concerned with the fact that we can't imagine all
    the future ways of publishing.  How can we tell that it isn't a
    prohibitive requirement?

We have to try.  If we accept this, or any, reason to say that any
requirement might perhaps be prohibitive, and reject any and all
requirements, that leaves rather few acceptable licenses.  Maybe none.