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

Re: Unidentified subject!

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
>     the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
>     GFDL'd manuals and then do this.  
> I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to
> think about this as a use of a manual.
> As it happens, you are free to do that, because copyright does not
> cover tearing up a manual.  You don't need a license to give you
> permission to do that.

No no, I cannot *copy* the manuals and then distribute them this way.

> Yes, there are gray areas where it is hard to decide.  I had to think
> for months about whether the TeX license qualified as free, since it
> makes the whole of the original TeX source code invariant.  And I had
> to think for weeks about a LaTeX license, that required changing the
> name of any file that you modify.  I eventually concluded that LaTeX
> was free despite this requirement, but only because it has a remapping
> feature that lets you say "Use file myfoo.sty when the document asks
> for foo.sty".

We have come to basically exactly the same conclusion about these
cases.  The GFDL does not allow for this.

>     Debian has a way of answering that question: but our way, which
>     involves the DFSG, would say that "send $1 to the author for
>     permission to make changes" is wrong for the same reasons that "send
>     $1 to the author for permission to make copies", and is wrong for the
>     same reason that we think that invariant sections are wrong.
> The DFSG doesn't say anything about invariant sections; you're
> assuming a very strict interpretation.  You're also assuming that the
> DFSG should be applied to manuals as well as software, and that the
> interpretation should be the same.

The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
least by the use of patch files.

Reply to: