Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
"Georg C. F. Greve" <greve@gnu.org> writes:
> gg> That was also discussed about the GPL.
>
> gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
> gg> their proprietary software any way they liked.
>
> I just realized that it was probably not wise to use proprietary
> software in that example as people might get more upset about it.
>
> In case anyone felt personally insulted: I apologize, this was not my
> intention.
>
> So please allow me to change that paragraph to
>
> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> couldn't take random parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
> their Free Software without taking the GPL into account.
>
> As legal proceedings are the same and this will hopefully increase my
> chances of being understood correctly.
You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why
does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the
manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where the other side is
the Manifesto, but that wastes half my space.
There's an easy and wrong counterargument that I'd have to include
the license, but I can put that on cheap onion paper; the Manifesto
has to be included as part of the document, so it's got to go on the
same expensive coffee-proof laminated stock as the reference card.
In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to
distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual? As far as I can see,
they cannot be distributed together. Emacs links against the manual
files, interpreting them programmatically -- this is how it takes me
straight to the info page referring to particular variables or
functions. It is, after all, a self-documenting editor. But the GFDL
imposes additional requirements over the GPL, so they may not be
distributed linked.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: