[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FYI: GNU Emacs Manual to be moved to non-free

D.Goel <deego@gnufans.org> wrote:

> I am sure almost no one consider FSF's manuals unfree just because
> DSFG thinks they are,

Well, judging from your email address, why am I not surprised you'd say
this without knowing the arguments.

>                       and that we all want to continue to use them,
> whether or not these issues get resolved.  IOW, most of these users
> will continue to want to use these manuals.

Sure.  They might just find them in non-free, where they belong. Heck,
I'll keep using them too.  But I'll also have a good reminder never to
include any of it in free code.

A few years ago, I was in the "documentation is not software and can't
be treating as such" camp.  Then I found myself wanting to include bits
of documentation in elisp code often enough to realise that
documentation about code may well get mixed with that code.  It's better
to have a license that allows it.  GFDL docs with Invariant Sections
aren't compatible with the GPL!  That's the _GNU_ GPL, the one that
you're so happy to uphold and protect.

> The net effect of this will be to force these few users to add nonfree
> into our sources.list..  which will make it very hard for us to find
> out what is free what is not before installing it.. and only serve as
> a huger inconvenience.

It's not a relevant argument to deter us.  We don't want to do this to
make it easy (we didn't put netscape in `main' years ago when it was the
only real browser out there either).  We want to do it because it's the
right thing to do.
> If you *have* to do this, until the situation is resolved with FSF,
> can they atleast be put in a different section, say "nonfree-but-gnu"
> (or abbreviated as "gnu"), so we can put that section in our
> sources.list and still not have to put "nonfree" in our sources.list?

That would discrimate against other non-free stuff.
> DG                                 http://gnufans.net/

Ah, a web site that uses the GFDL.  Does it have Invariant Sections?
If so, do users sometimes complain that they can't redistribute a bit of
your content without also including the Invariants?


Reply to: