(Don Armstrong): > Your interpretation would allow authors to identify any part of the > work that they wished as invariant, and then would claim that it is > Free Software. > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I spoke on a typical GNU manual; not on every hypothetical work based on the same license. > > > (Don Armstrong): > The very fact that you cannot easily construct a bright line test to > even begin to determine which works with such unmodifiable parts are > free and which are not should give you pause before continuing to > advocate your position. > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > But very bright lines does rarely exists in the reality. Whatever rules you put there will be grey aera. I just think that GNU manuals are still on the good site of the line.
Well, I will give a *very* specific example of why I am certain they are *not* on the good side of the line. The GCC manual contains an essay called "Funding Free Software". I believe that this essay is inaccurate in the details, that it gives bad advice, and that it presents an unrealistic view of free software funding. It does not describe the major methods of free software funding which exist today (including the way GCC is primarily funded), or encourage them; instead it encourages a method which has proven to be particularly ineffective. I would strongly like to rewrite it to reflect reality, and *particularly* to reflect the methods by which *GCC* is funded, since this is the GCC manual. I can do a good job at that with the assistance of the people I know and a little research. I am not permitted to. Instead, RMS's outdated, inaccurate screed is stuck there for all time. This is really non-free. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." -- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
