Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
No consideration was made to TeX or to Donald Knuth. Instead, we
decided that a particular kind of restriction on modification was not
a problem sufficient to impact freeness. Not *any* kind, but *that
particular kind*. And the reason is important.
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go
through to do create the binary package.
If you were to permit the same thing for manuals, it would be