On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think requiring that some documentation is provided with the source code, makes it unfree.Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.org> wrote:Here are a few comments about the license. - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor thing.
However, it could be intended to mean anything from "Please don't strip comments from the code" or "Keep the doc/ folder from the repository when producing a src tarball" to "Include any documentation ever written related to modifying the original work" (a patch howto, an emacs manual?). If the licensor has a copy of Knuth's TAOCP (ie. it's "available documentation"), and it describes something on-topic for modifying the original work (eg. the work uses linked lists, described in Chapter 2) then the Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of TAOCP. ∎