GFDL (was: EU Copyright..)

MJ Ray markj at
Mon May 6 14:53:12 UTC 2002

Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen at> wrote:
> It's intented for documentation. That documentation can have a section
> about the philosophy related of the thing documented, e.g. the GNU
> manifesto could be included to say why a specific GNU program was
> created.

If so, that should be licensed on its own under a different licence.

> You fail to see that a program is somethings functional and
> documentation is not and you have to treat is like that.

Why do you think the meaning of freedom changes depending on the authored
work being described?  I don't think it should.

> Documentation can also be read on the moon using software which runs
> disconnected from earth's network. What's your point?

There is no reason to change our beliefs if it is more difficult to obtain
the original in some cases than in others.

> But you say that the requirements to put the right things on the cover
> are bad, don't you?

I did not say that.  Do you say that you want to decide whether the author's
name appears on the cover?

> It the a free *documentation*, not a *free* software license. You are
> naming things which are in the definition of free software.

Why are they not valid for free software documentation?

> Debian doesn't classify the license as a non-free documentation license,
> all documentation licensed under the FDL are in main and there are no
> plans to move it to non-free. There is no reason the FSFE should ask GNU
> to reconsider.

Debian only calls it free if none of the restrictive sections are used. 
That is my understanding, at least, eg from Branden Robinson's message:

Feel free to point out any flaws in my logic.  I'm sure you will.  The
belief that the type of authored work is irrelevant is not one.

More information about the Discussion mailing list