RMS writes: > However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG > that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial > reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for > programs.
This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a revolutionary memory allocater to FreeBSD, every free OS could copy it in an instant, at the cost of another copyright notice, with no user-visible costs. But if he writes a revolutionary intro to regexes and releases it under the GFDL with invariant sections "Why the GPL Sucks" and "Why Linux and Hurd users should use a Real OS", in no non-theoretical world could Linux or Hurd use it. If you can't use the manual for what you want, even if it's "merely" because it offends you and you can't fix it, it's simply not a free license. > It is harder to find good technical writers as volunteers > than good programmers as volunteers. So I decided it was worth while > going quite close to the line, in the GFDL, to try to induce > commercial publishers to use it. The vast majority of the manuals under the GFDL with invariant sections (the main point of Debian's concern) come from the FSF, not commercial publishers. The GFDL, as currently used and by whom, serves you. If the FSF were willing to back away from that edge, Debian would be much happier, whether or not commercial publishers used the GFDL. -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers
