Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Daniel Dehennin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Le 5534 Septembre 1993, Stefan Reichör a envoyé: >>> I am no license expert. But I think that all manual authors will >>> agree to any license that will be free enough to have the manual >>> included in debian. >> >> What about Emacs inclusion ? >> >> For Emacs inclusion we need to have an LGPL manual, isn't it ? > > RMS definitely prefers the GFDL. I remember reading something to that > effect when the Org manual was being talked about on the emacs-devel > list. > > Carsten, what was the eventual outcome with the Debian package for Org > and the licensing of the Org manual?
Following up, every single manual in Emacs' doc/misc directory is licensed under GFDL, with no dual-licensing. It would be possible to maintain a separately-licensed copy *outside* of the Emacs tree, but we'd have to be very careful about not propagating changes verbatim from one copy to the other, and get permission from every current copyright holder, including myself. In short, this is more trouble than it's worth, and we should tell Debian users to either (1) use a published version of the manual from our website and don't distribute the manual with Debian, or (2) make a Debian "nonfree" package that has the docs. I would recommend option (1). Getting the manual into Emacs matters a hell of a lot more than getting the manual into Debian. -- | Michael Olson | FSF Associate Member #652 | | http://mwolson.org/ | Hobbies: Lisp, HCoop | | Projects: Emacs, Muse, ERC, EMMS, ErBot, DVC, Planner | `-------------------------------------------------------' _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
