FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

Eneko Lacunza hispalinux.listas at enlar.net
Wed Feb 8 19:20:26 UTC 2006


Just trying to clarify the concerns about FDL :)

El mié, 08-02-2006 a las 15:23 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt escribió:
> Este mensaje ha sido analizado y protegido contra virus y spam 
>    Nonsense.  It is the heart of FS software development.
> But the GFDL is for documentation, not software.
>    I am only talking about FS and in particular works with GPL
>    compatible licenses.  Refering to otehr parts of the code or manual
>    is not an option.
> And I'm speaking about Free Documentation. 
> Nobody is saying that the GFDL is a free software license.
> Since we are speaking about two different things, we obviously cannot
> agree on anything. :-)

Why is different the "free" as in freedom concept for documentation from
the concept of "free" as in freedom for "software"?

Why does FSF have two distinct opinions about the adequate level of
freedom for manuals and for software?

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?

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.

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


More information about the Discussion mailing list