Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

RMS wrote:
> A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.

Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
>browsers?

This is absolutely a *critical* point.  This is perhaps the essence of many 
of the complaints being made about the GFDL: it effectively restricts reuse 
to a narrow class of reuses, while free software licenses do not.  The issue 
of whether this is important may, in fact, sum up the fundamental point of 
disagreement between Debian and RMS.

Glad we're actually getting somewhere in regards to understanding each other. 
 :-)