> 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.
If you want to know what rms consider as free software and what he do not consider as free software, please take a look at <http://www.gnu.org>, especially <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html> You do not have to guess, to "believe", what position he may defends because it's already explicitely stated. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
