On Friday 12 September 2003 01:48, Richard Stallman wrote: > Then, a license allowing to freely distribute a software or a modified > version of this software in binary form only is free, but with a practical > inconvenience. > > If you interpret my statements by stretching the term "practical > inconvenience" to the point where it means nothing any more, then you > could reach this misinterpretation. Any criterion can be distorted if > you stretch the terms.
Where do you place the limit above which a practical inconvenience makes a license non-free ? Modifying a software in its binary form is possible, and allowed by my hypothetical license. Modifying a text is possible, but _not_ allowed by the GFDL under certain conditions. Which one is more free ? Mike
