Re: migrating away from the FDL

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

In article <[🔎] m3llutmvd9.fsf@dionysos.nib>, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> ... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with
>> an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and
>> no other restrictions would be free software, although
>> inconvenient.  I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that
>> position yet.
>
> If you want to know what rms consider as free software and what he do
> not consider as free software, please take a look at <http://www.gnu.org>,
> especially <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>
> 
> You do not have to guess, to "believe", what position he may defends
> because it's already explicitely stated. 

I've read those, of course.  More relevant to these hypothetical
licences is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html , which (if
read carefully) also supports my position above.  However, I am not
RMS, and I can't apply the algorithms he would use to judge freeness,
so there is a certain amount of guessing, since I know of no softwareq
distributed under this hypothetical ode-ious license.

Peace,
	Dylan