There is an amusing situation out there that I want to share with you, but before I can, I need to give you a little background. There is a man out there by the name of Richard M. Stallman (aka RMS). He is the founder of the Free Software Foundation, whose charter is to provide free software. In this context, the meaning of free is not (exclusively) without cost; it is rather in reference to freedom. His intent is to ensure that software he provides is done in a way that ensures once you legally acquire his software, you cannot be prevented from getting the source code, you cannot be prevented from using that source code to make changes, you cannot be prevented from sharing the original or modified work with others, and you if you do share, you must pass along all the rights you received.
To guarantee these rights, RMS created the GNU General Public License that says you are free to accept his software (or any software so licensed) as long as you agree to pass along all the same rights to the next person (if indeed you pass the software on at all; it doesn't require you to share, but if you do, you have to share on his terms.) There are other licenses he has written and/or recommended (the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the GNU Free Documentation License most notable among them); the primary similarity is that people should be free to use and modify software (in the case of the General Public Licenses) and documentation (in the case of the Free Documentation License).
RMS is very outspoken (outtypin'?) about how virtually everything should be free (I'm simplifying this big time). The Free Documentation license includes this in its preamble:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This sort of license requirement is found throughout the various GNU licences. RMS has also been quoted on multiple occasions how he will not (and no one should) use software that does not conform to his definition of free. Ok, no problem, he's entitled to his opinions, which I can even agree with to a limited extent. I just don't want to make it a religion, which he has (despite being a self-proclaimed athiest.)
Here's the thing I find amusing: on RMS's personal website, he has a copy of a song parody dealing with copyright law. It was written by a third party, and copyright reserved except in the case of unaltered copying (parody words and copyright notice). This is contrary to the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation, and given his life's work, and unflinching stance on only using free software, I find it amusing that he would allow anything on his website that forbids modification.
I know, this is a little different than a documentation manual (to which the Free Documentation License does not exclusively apply). That being said, this work on his website forbids (through it's unaltered clause) translation into a foreign language!
It's sad to see RMS failing to stand up for the rights of people to use and modify text in the same way he does for software. ;)
Go Top