Re: [piecepack] Re: Profitable sales of free-culture Piecepack

[Nick Moffitt <nick@...>]

Ben Finney:
> The FSF's position is inconsistent on this matter. It defines general
> freedoms that recipients deserve, but then claims that recipients
> don't deserve those freedoms in documentation.

I should point out that while the FSF's position is always debatable, it
may not be as inconsistent as you think.  One of the core points the FSF
has always made is that because software is both a functional work (like
a blueprint) and a universal description of process (like a mathematical
formula), it ought to be treated differently from anything else.

Traditionally the FSF defended the particular freedoms surrounding
documentation that you seem to personally find important, largely
because the GNU project chose to use the GPL for its documentation early
on.  Now they're trying to include writings that they don't want
misrepresented (political and philosophical writings, as well as fiction
such as The Right To Read), and are kind of surprised that people are
holding these works to the same standard as software.

I'm not a fan of the GFDL or its effects, but the FSF's position can be
reasoned about from their goals and actions.  A lot of confusion comes
from people making assumptions about the FSF's thoughts on a topic based
on third-party reports, so please don't take _my_ word for it!

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

-- 
Hey, how come nobody here in the future
has a time machine except me?