GFDL
RMS writes:
> 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
> programs.
This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a revolutionary
memory allocater to FreeBSD, every free OS could copy it in an instant,
at the cost of another copyright notice, with no user-visible costs. But
if he writes a revolutionary intro to regexes and releases it under the
GFDL with invariant sections "Why the GPL Sucks" and "Why Linux and Hurd
users should use a Real OS", in no non-theoretical world could Linux or
Hurd use it. If you can't use the manual for what you want, even if it's
"merely" because it offends you and you can't fix it, it's simply not a free
license.
> 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.
The vast majority of the manuals under the GFDL with invariant sections
(the main point of Debian's concern) come from the FSF, not commercial
publishers. The GFDL, as currently used and by whom, serves you. If the
FSF were willing to back away from that edge, Debian would be much happier,
whether or not commercial publishers used the GFDL.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
Reply to: