MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
> > speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
> > freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
>
> That is not a derived work. You can use proprietary software and
> describe it, too.
But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While
describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you can
do with a book (apart from reading it, obviously).
In fact, describing and analysing means approximatively "read the
source" of a book.
> > Every scientific book is made of references, bibliographies. You
> > do not remodify a book someone wrote - that's pointless.
>
> And you do not modify a program someone wrote, either? It's not
> fundamentally different.
You cut my message at the wrong place, where I explain why I say it's
pointless.
The missing part explains that when I thought about a book you've
read, you're already modifying it. While you cannot do the same with a
software until you get access to the source and explicit right to
modify it.
In fact, with computer, we're forced to use licenses to get the rights
we already have with books.
> One more time, with feeeeeeeling: I find the position that we would
> not benefit from a general right to modify, adapt, copy
You think you found this position only because you cut my text at the
wrong place.
At the contrary, I think we should all benefit from a general right to
modify, adapt, copy and distribute all sort of works. But I think this
is usually only impossible with proprietary software.
For the other sort of works, it's more the right to copy which is
not obvious unfortunately (music major companies do not cares about
sample but do care about burned CDs downloaded on the net). And the
GFDL is absolutely not a problem about this right.
I think this GFDL issue a complete waste of time -- but I do talk
about it because it would piss me off to add non-free in my apt-get's
sources to get the manual of the free softwares I enjoy.
> and distribute all sorts of creative work wholly illogical and draws
> an arbitrary distinction between functional and aesthetic works...
>
> ...but that's not relevant to this discussion. Replies off-list,
> please.
This is completely relevant to the subject "documentation eq
software?". If you're not interesting in this subject, you have the
right to stop feeding it.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
