Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
David Kastrup <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <email@example.com> writes:
> > David Kastrup <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its
> >> normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to
> >> separate them.
> > Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses.
> Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. And the GPL
> is not really well-suited for publications in print: the obligation to
> provide the full source code at cost means additional obligations for
> a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of the end result,
> even though no sane person would actually have a use for the source of
> that _particular_ publication instead of the one accompanying his copy
> of Emacs.
To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for example) is
more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra costs) to