Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : > > > You argue that RMS is incorruptible? > > I do. > > > I present as a counterargument the GFDL. > > The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free > software world, sure. > > But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on > www.gnu.org are contradicted by the GFDL. Richard always focused on > software and not on book and even if he ackownledged that software > documentation must be free.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html : The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free : software: it is a matter of giving all users certain : freedoms. Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be : permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program, : on-line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too. : : [cut a bit about different needs for non-manual books] : : But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial : for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right : to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are : conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide : accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual : which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or : more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they : change the program, does not fill our community's needs.