Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
[I've found this unsent message which I wrote yesterday]
Brian T. Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why
> does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the
> manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where the other side is
> the Manifesto, but that wastes half my space.
If the manifesto marked as invariant? I didn't know that!
I don't have the texinfo sources here, only the Info version.
There's a node:
* GNU Free Documentation License:: The license for this documentation.
It spells out how to use the license but doesn't apply it for this
document. e.g. I can't find the copyright declaration for that document
where the invariant sections are to be listed.
> In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to
> distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual? As far as I can see,
> they cannot be distributed together. Emacs links against the manual
> files, interpreting them programmatically -- this is how it takes me
> straight to the info page referring to particular variables or
> functions. It is, after all, a self-documenting editor. But the GFDL
> imposes additional requirements over the GPL, so they may not be
> distributed linked.
It sounds to me that Debian should request that the FSF grant the
exception to distribute the two works linked like that. Following the
FSF's licenses to the letter would mean the removal of the manual from
the emacs package, which isn't good for our users.