Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au) wrote:
> This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
> end-user, however, 
Not necessarily legally modified.  In the US you may need a license to 
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
> and the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed
> really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all.  no one really needs to
> modify doc-linux-nonfree-text, or povray-doc.....
This is just too silly a claim to argue with.  Even Stallman, notorious 
supporter of non-free documentation, would disagree.

> any possible need to modify
> can easily be worked around with an errata sheet,
"Any possible need to modify a program can be easily worked around with 
patches."

> or by submitting a change to
> the authors.
"Any possible need to modify a program can be handled by submitting a 
change to its authors."

So this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I won't try to argue with it 
any further, because so many people have already explained why it's 
totally false.