Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order > >> > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as > >> > refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because > >> > of advances in the program it documents). This is a transformation > >> > much more intrusive than merely reformatting it or similar actions > >> > which you would > >> > >> GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section. > > > > Then it doesn't permit it, does it? > > You still haven't addressed this point. > > But you didn't reply to questions I asked yesterday following > your examples, embedding pieces of docs in software that is.
I'm not sure what question that was. Perhaps it was answered in the message you missed? (see below). > >> AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation. > > > > I've addressed this and you never commented. > > I'm sorry if I haven't. Could you point me to this reference please? Sure: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00351.html > >> Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic. > > > > I've addressed this as well. It's not relevant and I wished you'd stop > > using it as an argument. > > Your right that it's not relevant but shouldn't we consider the world > we live in? No. That would dilute the DSFG. Don't evaluate licenses based on the need for the licensed material. Evaluate it in abstraction of it. Peter