David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > JérÎme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free >>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form, >>> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead >>> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD >>> utilities all around. >>> >>> But the current course is pure duplicity. >> >> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents >> under the GFDL makes documentation free. > > Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had > been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally > be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom?
It is irrelevant. Invariant sections restrict freedom to modify GFDL software. There is not much to be proven. >> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly >> acceptable, while they would not with GPL? > > Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU > project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a > sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't > be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. But documentation *is* software. As I was corrected right by Manoj in past discussions, everything that's not hardware is software. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software Hence GFDL with invariant sections is not a free *software* license. -- Jérôme Marant
