On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 00:01 +0100, Eneko Lacunza wrote: > You also don't comment my first paragraph about the problems with > invariant/dedications.
Dedications can't be Invariants. > > > > Why does FSF have two distinct opinions about the adequate level of > > > > freedom for manuals and for software? > > > > Because they are different. It is that simple. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html > > > > > > But the 4 freedoms do not change, it does not matter wheter it is > > > software or not. > > Oh really? Let's see... > > > > Theory: 4 software freedoms are the same for books > > > > If Theory is true then you can "run" a book for "an > > purpose" (software freedom 0) since it is a software freedom. > > > > But since you can't "run" books, then you can't exercise one of > > the four freedoms. > > > > Hence, the 4 software freedoms are not the same for books. > > Q.E.D. > > I do not understand "Q.E.D.". For the other part, if you understand > "run" as "read", which I think is quite appropiate, it works. But "read" is not "run" (freedom 0) but "study" (freedom 1). > I respect you to not want the text you've written be modified, no > matter the contents, but then it is NOT FREE. Passing yourself for me is not allowed by law. So I think your confusing a math text book I write with an invariant section where I say how I can have X or Y levels of orgasm with the theories of a certain researcher. Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
