-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, ams@gnu.org schrieb am 10.02.06 12:28:55:
There is no doubt that free software needs free documentation, even FSF says this. If so, why does FSF allow restrictions to modifications of documentation (using FDL) that does not allow for software?
Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I dedicated the book.
You're talking about books but the argument was about, say, the the gcc manual.
There is people that thinks software is the conjuction of programs and their documentation (and other thing, like images, etc.). For example, Debian project seems to think this way.
Debian consideres _everything_ software, which is simply bogus. Some images might make sense to have as verbatim only, same applies for many texts about philosophy, or even music recordings. This does not apply to functional works, like software, where modification is an essential right.
And documentation of software belongs to the software itself as much as the source code.
You don't need the right to modify my poem about dragons, or infact, this text.
Nobody said so.
Why limit modification of documentation of a free program, if we do not want that limit for the program itself and if the documentation is necessary?
You aren't limited anywhere when you modify free documentation of a free program. This is like saying that you are limited by the GPL to create non-free works, which is simply nonsense.
I could interpret your message as saying that GFDL was not free, otherwise, its sense is unclear to me.
The main question I see about this was: Why are manuals/docs of GNU GPLed programs not under GNU GPL license, a license that is bullet-proof, easily understood (in comparison to GFDL, at least) and also practically useful?
Best wishes Michael