In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed > out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and > 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things. > I believe that many Debian Developers agreed with the DFSG because they > are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not the Debian Freeness > Guidelines, or sth similar. > > However, since I'm currently still forming my opinion on that subject, > I'd rather not discuss it -- at least not yet.
By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html Let me quote the relevant paragraph: > Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms. > It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do. > ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it > (functionally), and redistribute modified versions. It is ok to > have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't > prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you > want to make. Note the provisos "functionally" and "substantively". Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. Peace, Dylan (IANADD)
