Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Jérôme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
> > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
> > refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because
> > of advances in the program it documents). This is a transformation
> > much more intrusive than merely reformatting it or similar actions
> > which you would
> GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section.
Then it doesn't permit it, does it?
You still haven't addressed this point.
> > > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software
> > > > and the whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the
> > > > FSF doesn't have to follow everyone else's definition of
> > > > freedom).
> > >
> > > "The whole thing"? Emacs itself?
> > Yup.
I don't agree. Just take out the offending part.
> That's insane.
> > This emacs thing actually amuses me somewhat. The FSF appears to
> > take as broad a line as possible in defining linking and other
> > 'combined work' things (so as to get as much GPL'd software as
> > possible, of course). But if that work was really successful,
> > they'd probably end up having embedded documentation (which emacs
> > may or may not contain). At any rate, the GPL says "thou shalt not
> > distribute a Program with both GPL and other stuff", and then goes
> > and does that very same thing themselves...
> AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation.
I've addressed this and you never commented.
> > > > I see the motivations as very similar.
> > >
> > > Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs?
> > I think it's more that some people get very motivated where ideology
> > is concerned...
> Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic.
I've addressed this as well. It's not relevant and I wished you'd stop
using it as an argument.