Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:35:47 +0200, David Kastrup <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> 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
>> Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses.
> Because the manual is also distributed in printed form.
Is that the only reason? Why not dual-license, then?
> 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.
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: email@example.com - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA