Re: lynx-dev Referring to non-free documentation for non-free software

[David Combs]

> From address@hidden Sun Jan 31 17:48:36 1999
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:45:26 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> 
> When I wrote the rule about not referring to non-free documentation,
> what I had in mind was documentation *for* free software.  I didn't
> intend to say anything about documentation for things like proprietary
> operating system platforms that a package runs on, and I've never
> myself tried to avoid referring to that kind of thing.
> 
> But, as some of you have pointed out, the words I wrote don't
> distinguish that case from the case of non-free documentation
> for free software, which I had in mind.
> 
> So I rewrote the text as follows:
> 
>     A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program, and it
>     should not refer the user to any non-free documentation for free
>     software.  The need for free documentation to go with free software is
>     now a major focus of the GNU project; to show that we are serious
>     about the need for free documentation, we must not contradict our
>     position by recommending use of documentation that isn't free.
> 
> Given that there's so much disagreement among Lynx developers, I
> expect you probably won't decide to join the GNU Project; I don't
> think this change will affect your decision.  But since you've shown
> me something unclear in my words, it's good for me to fix it anyway.
> 
> 

QUESTION: in your rewritten text, those "should not" pairs;
do you mean "may not", or "should not"?

If "should not" (ie "we'd really prefer if you didn't"), then
they're nice, but carry no legal force, I would guess.

"May not" would make it a lot clearer, if that is what you
REALLY intend; it might also strike fear into the hearts, and
fsf-agreement-signing-hands, of lots of free-software
(or is it open-software?) programmers.

Or MAYBE you WANT to keep it ambiguous?  (Thus leaving it up to
a judge to decide what the intent was?)

David