Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to >> documentation. > > I'm not so sure. The Info file isn't dumped raw into a buffer for > display. The info files provides offsets to each Info node such that a > browser that quickly jump to any Node and display only that node. Look > at the contents of /usr/share/info/emacs-21/emacs.gz and tell me that > Info files don't provide hooks to software.
It looks like references between nodes but it doesn't look particular to emacs, but to any info reader I guess. >> But I understand now that the binaries and al. >> cannot come along with the documentation. >> >> > > > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal >> > > > out of the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge >> > > > this documentation into software? >> > > >> > > I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case? >> > >> > I don't understand the question. Such a case of merging software >> > into other software? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible >> > derived works _without_ including invariant bits of code. >> >> No, code + documentation. > > I'm still not sure I understand the question. Do does a software > license handle mixing code and documentation? Well, release the Emacs That's it. > manual under the GPL and I can create derived works that combine both > under the GPL. I may extract bits from the manual to make balloon help > texts, or to make quick help texts under a menu. In those cases I Hmm, my question was rather: GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible code, but does it handle GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible documentation? Or does it simply handle GPL thingy + non-GPL-compatible thingy whatsoever? (I'm afraid I did not reread GPL lately). > obviously wouldn't include the GNU manifesto along with my short > excerpts. But I'm not a vilain. So if I redistributed the manual, I'd > leave it intact and the manifesto would stay in. It would be common > sense rather than being forced-to in compliance with the license. Yes, clearly. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org