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. > > > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software > > > > and the whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the > > > > FSF doesn't have to follow everyone else's definition of > > > > freedom). > > > > > > "The whole thing"? Emacs itself? > > > > Yup. I don't agree. Just take out the offending part. > That's insane. > > > This emacs thing actually amuses me somewhat. The FSF appears to > > take as broad a line as possible in defining linking and other > > 'combined work' things (so as to get as much GPL'd software as > > possible, of course). But if that work was really successful, > > they'd probably end up having embedded documentation (which emacs > > may or may not contain). At any rate, the GPL says "thou shalt not > > distribute a Program with both GPL and other stuff", and then goes > > and does that very same thing themselves... > > AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation. I've addressed this and you never commented. > > > > I see the motivations as very similar. > > > > > > Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs? > > > > I think it's more that some people get very motivated where ideology > > is concerned... > > 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. Peter
