Re: License for documentation
On 8 Jul 1999 email@example.com wrote:
> > 2. The main feature of the GPL are mechanisms to ensure that "the
> > preferred form for making modifications to the work" will always
> > be available to everyone who gets a copy. The license in the
> > manual explicitly allows distribution of hardcopies without
> > also distributing the .texi source.
> That is a second license intended to make an exception for the case of
> printed manuals and texinfo output. It's entirely absurd to suppose that
> FSF would distribute a manual with technical content that could not be
I am not supposing so. The license in the .texi file perfectly well
allows the technical content to be changed; it does not need the GPL
to help it with that.
However, I am allowed to give you a hardcopy of the manual and not give
you the .texi source. You'll still be allowed to make modified copies
(using analog cut-and-paste, I suppose, or some OCR software), but I am
not obliged to give you the source to make it easy for you.
You still have not provided arguments why you think the .texi should
be considered under GPL. Neither have you addressed my arguments why
I think it should not.