Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote
>Jérôme Marant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> En réponse à MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
>> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
>> > You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
>> > not the social contract.
>> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me.
>Jérôme, that's RMS' choice to make. We don't have to pretend it's free.
Yes, it is.
>He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free
>software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a
>small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free.
Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"?
>> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they
>> are not on GNU side ...
>I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the FSF
>say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a non-free
>license, but that they are promoting it as a free license.
You are right if you considered such documentation as covered
by DFSG. This is the point of the debate.
>How hard will it be for you to fetch some docs from non-free? I don't
>think it's a huge price to pay to be true to ourselves.
Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part
of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that.
You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals.
This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals.
Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing
applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork
documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the