Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I can understand some gift not meeting your standards, but it goes
> much too far to characterize the giver of disappointing gift as
> 'reprehensible'.
I find it extremely difficult to classify the GFDL as a "gift".
> The trade-off that the FSF seems to be making with the GFDL is:
> in order to entrench pro-freedom propaganda in works of documentation
The document "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" (WHY-FREE) is bolted onto
documentation, and, as a piece of software owned by the FSF, it can not be
modified or removed. That's a very interesting "trade-off".
> [2] E.g., Stallman doesn't think that the GPL itself should be free.
The GPL can be modified, as long as you remove the preamble and don't
call it the "GPL". It's not DFSG-free, but it's close, and I suspect
that if one were to strip off the preamble and rename it, you might
be able to form a derivative work that does comply with the DFSG.
(CC: -legal for any comments on this conjecture ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: