Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I don't agree. Just take out the offending part. > > The GFDL does not allow us to take out the offending part - it contains > sections which are not allowed to be removed.
Sorry, I meant take out the GFDL docs (which are offending the GPL part). > If Emacs + it's documentation is considered to be a single entity which is > a derived work of both a GPL product and a GFDL product, it is > undistributable even in non-free. True. > I personally consider them seperate works which we aggregate and > distribute together, but the FSF takes a pretty wide interpretation of > "linking", so I could be in the minority. I thought of them as separate works (much as an application and a library) that are linked together at run-time (Emacs internal info about where the nodes are from the Info files, and then has the knowledge to fetch bits). But that's only my interpretation. > > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's insane. > > We may disagree with RMS on this, but it's not helpful to call him insane ;) Funny. Peter
