Re: Which license for a documentation?
On 2004-06-08 08:14:13 +0100 Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:
> [...] However, someone did suggest that
> such a request would make the program non-free. [...]
Do you mean Josh Triplett? He accepted Lewis Jardine's correction. Why won't you?
> I understand that it could be
> an inconvenience, but that inconvenience is for the author of the
> program, not the users.
It also inconveniences all distributors, does it not?
> If the author is willing to deal with it, he
> should have the choice, calling anything else freedom is hypocritical
> at best.
Was anyone arguing against author's choice, or are you attacking a position no-one holds?
> If you would like to distribute a modified version, but are
> unable to comply with the requirements you will simply have to refrain
> from doing it.
That's exactly what debian does, isn't it?
> I can understand that a distribution like Debian can desire to only
> include software meeting some criteria for freedom, but this is
> entirely separate from the question of allowing or disallowing
> software failing some of these criteria.
Cobblers. Debian makes a promise to its users about what it will include. It must either disallow software which doesn't meet the criteria, or change the promise. The path to change the promise is well-known.
> There are many, especially on this list, who disagree with me. [...]
I'm not surprised. You appear to ignore the social contract.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/
Reply to: