Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. 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.
>
> To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for
> example) is more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra
> costs) to publishers.
If it leaves you no sensible way to publish your own manuals, the word
"freedom" seems to acquire a backward meaning.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: