Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Jérôme Marant <jmarant@nerim.net> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
>
> > Jérôme Marant <jmarant@nerim.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >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"?
> >
> > Well, they interfere greatly with derived works of documents (you can't
> > merge in text into a derived work without also including the Invariants)
> > whether the derived works are other manuals, a reference card, or
> > context-sensitive help in Emacs (a pull-down menu for example).
> > How you you create such a pull-down menu?
>
> Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal just
> embedding the invariant section without displaying it?
You've got to be kidding. For one thing, who wants to jump through that
hoop. For another, that would likely knowingly circumventing the license.
> > I'd even argue that distributing Emacs that links into the Info document
> > as it does now is not permitted by the Emacs license. It seeems to be a
> > combined work with added restrictions beyond what the GPL allows.
>
> Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
> documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
It was argued in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00169.html
> >> >> 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.
> >
> > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal out of
> > the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge this
> > documentation into software?
>
> I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case?
I don't understand the question. Such a case of merging software into
other software? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible derived
works _without_ including invariant bits of code.
Peter
Reply to: