Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:

> "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
> > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
> > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
> > what funds the FSF needs?
>
> No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be
> more tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local
> to the recipient), or change the wordings for things where
> soliciting donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal.

More importantly, amending the license ahead of time so that this
specific example is allowed doesn't address the root problem. The
*recipient* of the work is the one who should be deciding what changes
are appropriate for a free work; the licensor *cannot* pretend to
cover all possibilities by any means other than an unqualified "you
may make any changes to the work".

Any work with modification restrictions narrower than that is not a
free work.

-- 
 \           "A poet more than thirty years old is simply an overgrown |
  `\                                      child."  -- Henry L. Mencken |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney