Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > If the project secretary decides
> > that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> > mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> > that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
> This is not correct.
> The FSF, through RMS, has officially claimed that documentation does
> not need the same freedoms as programs, and furthermore has stated
> that the GFDL is not a free software license (they appear to be
> using "software" to mean "programs").
No, this is not correct. As most people FSF is using "software" to
mean "programs". This does not mean that FSF doesn't support the
freedoms of the users to
1. read the documentation freely without any controll by technical
2. to change the documentation to suit their needs
3. to copy and distribute the documentation
4. to improve the documentation and to release the improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits
You see that these are pretty much the same freedoms as the freedoms