Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.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.