> Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of
> giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just
> the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that
> you would give to anyone else. The consequences of such an approach
> should be obvious: there will be no cooperation.
He didn't say cooperation. He said consideration.
I stand corrected, but this doesn't change the point.
We are disappointed that you don't value freedom in
documentation as much as you do for programs.
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG
that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial
reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for
This reminded me of another relevant difference between manuals and
software. It is harder to find good technical writers as volunteers
than good programmers as volunteers. So I decided it was worth while
going quite close to the line, in the GFDL, to try to induce
commercial publishers to use it. I would not think of going so close
to the line in a software license, since I know there's no need.
- Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Re: GFDL
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)