Dnia niedziela, 19 maja 2013 o 15:20:25 Thomas Harding napisał(a): > Le 19/05/2013 14:52, Michael Dorrington a écrit : > > I posted in December 2012 and January 2013 to this list about how > > including manuals which are under the GFDL with Invariant Sections or > > other unmodifiable parts (which is similar to a CC with ND licence) in a > > distribution makes that distribution non-free. The FSF agree in this > > article: > > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions > > [..] > > > However, the FSF still distribute manuals under the GFDL with Invariant > > Sections or other unmodifiable parts. > > > > The FSF's "Guidelines for Free System Distributions" does not forbid the > > inclusion of manuals under this licence so a distribution conforming to > > those guidelines does not mean it is free. And, for example, Trisquel > > includes such manuals in its repo which (I assume) is setup on install > > thus making Trisquel a non-free distribution. > > [...] > > > How can we get the FSF to recognise this and so change the licence it > > uses for its manuals to be a free one? > > This is one historical point of disagreement between > Debian(FSGuidelines)/FSF, > and has been highly discussed. Unfortunately... > > Sometimes opinions are not flexible: you should wait for a good > circumstance. > > This thread and issued document by Michal could emphasize the problem, but > you're pleased to find a solution ;)
The solution is a reasoned debate with the FSF and GNU communities to try and convince them why -ND/GNU Verbatim is not a good idea. ;) -- Pozdrawiam Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
