Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Everyone seems to think that to "allow" someone to write a non-free manual
    is somehow a detriment.

The fact is, people are allowed to write non-free manuals.  When
people want to do this, they do it.  Neither the GNU Project nor the
LDP can tell them what to do.

The question for the LDP to decide, the question on which I am
advocating a position, is whether the LDP will accept non-free
documentation, and put its seal of approval on non-free documentation.

Non-free documentation causes a number of problems when the free
software community tries to use it.  For example, it can become
impossible to update.  When someone makes a modified version of the
softwae, he cannot make a modified version of the documentation to go
with it.

Some people are determined to write a free manual, and will make the
manual free no matter what the situation.  Other people are determined
to write a non-free manual and will do so no matter what we say.
But there are some who wish to participate in the LDP, and if the
LDP says "From now on we will only accept free documents", that will
be enough to convince them.

I think the LDP can contribute a lot more to filling the shortfall
in free documentation if it adopts this policy.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org