Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote: >> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free >> software, ... > To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue > that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software > sense, since you can make any functional changes you want.
That is not the same thing at all. I am sure that my statement is accurate, but I cannot justify it from material I can find to quote. I think it's pretty clear from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00640.html that RMS doesn't consider FDL-covered works to be free software or even that such a request is reasonable. Probably I shouldn't have put that statement quite that strongly, though. Sorry. There are two paths, near each other: 1. Ask for things to be under free licences and define free for each type of content individually; 2. Ask for everything to be free software. FSF seems to take path 1, Debian seems to take path 2. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884