[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

    You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
    is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
    program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret
    that as 'the freedom to use the manual, for any purpose'.

    So, by your own terms (unless you want to state that my interpretation
    is incorrect), a manual is not free if you can only use the manual as a
    manual, and not as something else.

Freedom zero is not about modification, not for programs or manuals.
The analogue of running a program, for a manual, is to read it.
So freedom zero would mean you can read it for any purpose.
The freedom to modify is freedom one.

    > Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
    > GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
    > can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.

    The difference being that none of the other free documentation licenses
    include invariant sections, at least not AFAIK. This means they can be
    used for other purposes, such as reference cards, where large blurbs of
    invariant text (which is required to be part of the work by the GFDL)
    are not a problem.

This is not a real obstacle.  I have explained it several times in the
past week.

The fact that various people keep raising this issue despite my
explanations convinces me that I may as well stop.

    > Whether the manual's text could be used in a free software package
    > with a license that qualifies as free software, but is not one I'd
    > want to use, is just academic.

    In your opinion, perhaps. Allow other people the freedom to think

I have never questioned your freedom to think, and say, whatever you
like about this and other issues.

Reply to: