Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech >> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it >> may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was >> designed to deliver software rather than political speech. > > Sure, that's a nice analysis. What do you propose to do about it? > Debian would be quite happy to distribute modifiable political speech > (with suitable provisions for protecting the author's integrity), but > the FSF has not shown any interest in considering that possibility; > and most DDs posting here seem quite firm in the view that > unmodifiable political speech is not allowed.
Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-text. I think RMS fear that we would somehow change his essays is severely unfounded. Additionally, his argument is misleading in ways which prevent counterargument: there's no way we could change his essays. We might derive works from his essays, though it is unlikely they would be noticeably similar to his essays. -Brian
