Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Andreas Barth <aba+nospam@not.so.argh.org>]

* MJ Ray (markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk) [030921 18:39]:
> On 2003-09-21 14:52:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> >It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according
> >to Debian.
> >
> >Please pay attention to the fact that different definitions exists of
> >some concepts.

> A free fairtrade chocolate bar to the first person who finds the GNU 
> Free Documentation Definition on their site and send me or the list 
> the URL.

Here you are:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

This site says:
| The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
| software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
| Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
| permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
| on-line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.

But later on says that unmodificable non-technical sections are ok.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C