Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@...> wrote:
- No support for FSF*'s non-free-software actions (FDL and so on)
The GFDL has nothing to do with software, there is nothing non-free software related with it, nor has it much to do with software. It is a decent free _documentation_ license.
So, the Free *Software* Foundation should not be promoting it, if it has nothing to do with software or free software. I don't much mind which way you want to argue it, but the FSF should not promote the FDL.
I also disagree that it is a free documentation licence. Documentation with unnecessary uneditable adverts/propaganda which cannot be removed are not free in most senses, and an immoral waste of paper when printed.
Thanks,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 23:09 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@...> wrote:
- No support for FSF*'s non-free-software actions (FDL and so on)
The GFDL has nothing to do with software, there is nothing non-free software related with it, nor has it much to do with software. It is a decent free _documentation_ license.
So, the Free *Software* Foundation should not be promoting it, if it has nothing to do with software or free software. I don't much mind which way you want to argue it, but the FSF should not promote the FDL.
I also disagree that it is a free documentation licence. Documentation with unnecessary uneditable adverts/propaganda which cannot be removed are not free in most senses, and an immoral waste of paper when printed.
Can we stop with this regular bimonthly flame about the GFDL ?
Simo.
So, the Free *Software* Foundation should not be promoting it, if it has nothing to do with software or free software. I don't much mind which way you want to argue it, but the FSF should not promote the FDL.
Then the FSF* should not have anything to do with DRM and TC (both are hardware related). You are awfully silly in your reasoning.
I also disagree that it is a free documentation licence. Documentation with unnecessary uneditable adverts/propaganda which cannot be removed are not free in most senses,
The documentation doesn't have such uneditable sections. Only secondary sections can be under the invariant clause.
and an immoral waste of paper when printed.
So are copyright notices when printing source code.