Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free >> >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a >> >small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free. >> >> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? > > Well, they interfere greatly with derived works of documents (you can't > merge in text into a derived work without also including the Invariants) > whether the derived works are other manuals, a reference card, or > context-sensitive help in Emacs (a pull-down menu for example). > How you you create such a pull-down menu?
Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal just embedding the invariant section without displaying it? > I'd even argue that distributing Emacs that links into the Info document > as it does now is not permitted by the Emacs license. It seeems to be a > combined work with added restrictions beyond what the GPL allows. Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK. >> >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they >> >> are not on GNU side ... >> > >> >I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the FSF >> >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a non-free >> >license, but that they are promoting it as a free license. >> >> You are right if you considered such documentation as covered >> by DFSG. This is the point of the debate. > > 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? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
