Re: [scoop@freshmeat.net: gnumaniak 1.0]

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu> writes:

> The problem is that one of the license requirements (3c (?)) 
> puts it into non-free.

For those who haven't read it, here is the (weird) section 3C:
   
  3c) You must not add notes to the Document implying that the
    reader had better read something produced using Texinfo.

Ben Gertzfield wrote:

> Again, the DFSG can't really apply to documentation. Look at the Perl
> FAQ; we'd have to put it in non-free if we applied the DFSG to
> documentation.

Meaning that we aren't going to modify documentation in such a way anyway,
and that documentation is allowed _no modification_ in its license?

But _why_ did he put that in there anyway?  Does he hate texinfo? Or does
he hate the fact that documentations get scattered all over the place?

Peter