On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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.
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a "USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own business. otherwise, writing in the margins of books or using sticky notes would be illegal. > >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. no, it's not at all a silly claim. sure, it would be a lot nicer if all documentation were free along with all software - but it really makes no pratical difference (as opposed to a contrived difference where the argument has to have all the pre-conditions set exactly right to "prove" that it makes a difference). most users of software, whether it be free or non-free, have no need whatsoever to modify the documentation. a handful of developers may find it convenient to have the right to modify docs, but that's a convenience only - errata sheets and submission of documentation patches to the author/copyright-holder are adequate. > >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." this does not make something non-free. we (grudgingly) accept software that can only be modified by patches as DFSG-free. it's annoying and it's a hassle, but it still qualifies as free. why should documentation be held to a higher standard of freeness than software? > >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." yes, that's certainly non-free. it can still be *useful*, and (as has been noted before) makes no practical difference to any real person, outside of contrived examples. > 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. you won't argue with it because you haven't actually thought about it. you're just reacting to the evil 'non-free' term. craig