> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > Actually, I think that both FSF and DFSG define "free software" pretty > > similarily. The problem arises from the fact that our Social Contract > > applies DFSG to all works, not just software, whereas FSF considers > > software a special case. Exactly. (Except that we've also argued about the meaning of "software". The FSF considers "software" to mean "computer programs", while some of us with more respect for linguistic history use the old meaning of software: "any collection of bits", or "anything in the computer that's not hardware".)
> > Do note that (eg.) the invariant sections are > > _not_ present in the GPLv3 draft. Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They are not present because this would make some useful modifications > impossible. As I have noted elsewhere (debian-legal, just this week), the Invariant Sections in the GCC Manual make some very useful modifications impossible. Perhaps you're not an essayist. As a writer of essays, I understand the value of free licenses for essays; it's just as large as the value for free licenses for programs, if not larger. A good piece of rhetoric is a lot harder to replace by rewriting than a good piece of code. Availability of source code is not an issue, but rights to create derivative works are a *HUGE* issue. Consider, for example, some famous derivative works of the Declaration of Independence: the Declaration of Sentiments and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Good thing the Declaration of Independence was freely licensed. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
