Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 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.
TeX allows us to make any changes we like provided we distribute the
changed source as a patch file, and provided we change the name if the
result doesn't pass the Trip test.
This is not allowed for a GFDL manual, is it?
> 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.
I'm a little sure what is "prohibitive". Can you flesh it out?
Some things are prohibitive without being impossible, of course, so
it's not quite about impossibility. Other things are prohibitive
without being expensive, so it's not about that. It would help if you
could explain more what is a prohibitive impracticality and what is
not.
Importantly, what must the impracticality prohibit to count?
Thomas
Reply to: