Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     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.

I strongly disagree.  The analogue of running a program, for a manual,
is to write it or to teach from it.  In order to have freedom with
respect to a manual, I must be able to apply it to purposes beyond
those which the original author intended.

-Brian