Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Apr 26, 2004, at 20:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation
license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do
not contain essential material.
I agree that this position --- and similar ones --- were voiced by
several people. However, for the sake of completeness, it should be
pointed out that:
1) None of the proponents of this position came up with a good
definition of "software" vs. "documentation". (Personally,
I think it may be doable for many cases, but there will be
many other things which defy classification.)
2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good
reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software
don't apply to documentation.
3) None of the proponents of this position came up with a list
of what should be changed in the DFSG to get the Debian Free
Documentation Guidelines, nor did they even begin to write
And, most importantly, that the above three aren't on-topic here;
rather, they belong on -project or (in the event of a proposal) -vote.