On 20/05/13 01:08, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote: > Dnia niedziela, 19 maja 2013 o 15:39:57 Michael Dorrington napisał(a): >> On 19/05/13 14:20, Thomas Harding wrote: >>> Le 19/05/2013 14:52, Michael Dorrington a écrit : >> [...] >> >>>> 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... >> >> I don't see it is a disagreement between Debian and FSF. More of a >> disagreement between the FSF and itself, as its philosophy and practise >> disagree on manuals. The FSF philosophy says that manuals should be >> free but the FSF practise is to distribute non-free manuals. That's >> non-free by the FSF's own measure. >> >>> Sometimes opinions are not flexible: you should wait for a good >>> circumstance. >> >> Be sure to point out when the good circumstance occurs. :) >> >>> This thread and issued document by Michal could emphasize the problem, >>> but you're pleased to find a solution ;) >> >> I wish that Michał would post his text into the thread so we can discuss >> it. > > Ask and ye shall receive: > http://rys.io/en/101.txt
The part above that got cut out in the [...] was when Michael said: "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." Yet the document you posted only covers points specific to CC-*-ND and GNU Verbatim licenses. For the licenses in question, I agree with many of your points. However, those are entirely different beasts to the GFDL, which is the license that seems more commonly used for software documentation in GNU/Linux distributions. I don't see any of your concerns take issue with anything the GFDL does, given the strict limitations placed on non-variant sections. In any case, let's make sure we don't confuse licenses. Regards, Adam
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
