Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> >
> > > You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > > I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
> >
> > The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
> > software world, sure.
> >
> > But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on
> > www.gnu.org are contradicted by the GFDL. Richard always focused on
> > software and not on book and even if he ackownledged that software
> > documentation must be free.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
>
> : The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
> : software: it is a matter of giving all users certain
> : freedoms. Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
> : permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
> : on-line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.
> :
> : [cut a bit about different needs for non-manual books]
> :
> : But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
> : for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right
> : to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
> : conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
> : accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
> : which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or
> : more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they
> : change the program, does not fill our community's needs.
There no contradiction with the Invariant part option: no invariant
part can describe a particular function.
You can provide an accurate documentation without changing a text
written by the original author that explain why he started to write
the software.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
