Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: gnumaniak 1.0]
Ben Pfaff <email@example.com> 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
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?