Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In article <[🔎] slrnbihnhr.3jh.markj+0111@bouncing.localnet>, MJ Ray wrote:
>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>> software, ...
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
> that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
> sense, since you can make any functional changes you want.
That is not the same thing at all. I am sure that
my statement is accurate, but I cannot justify it from
material I can find to quote. I think it's pretty clear from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00640.html
that RMS doesn't consider FDL-covered works to be free software or even
that such a request is reasonable. Probably I shouldn't have put that
statement quite that strongly, though. Sorry.
There are two paths, near each other:
1. Ask for things to be under free licences and define free for each type
of content individually;
2. Ask for everything to be free software.
FSF seems to take path 1, Debian seems to take path 2.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Reply to: