Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Mark Rafn <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I don't agree. Just take out the offending part.
> The GFDL does not allow us to take out the offending part - it contains
> sections which are not allowed to be removed.
Sorry, I meant take out the GFDL docs (which are offending the GPL part).
> If Emacs + it's documentation is considered to be a single entity which is
> a derived work of both a GPL product and a GFDL product, it is
> undistributable even in non-free.
> I personally consider them seperate works which we aggregate and
> distribute together, but the FSF takes a pretty wide interpretation of
> "linking", so I could be in the minority.
I thought of them as separate works (much as an application and a
library) that are linked together at run-time (Emacs internal info about
where the nodes are from the Info files, and then has the knowledge to
fetch bits). But that's only my interpretation.
> > Jérôme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > That's insane.
> We may disagree with RMS on this, but it's not helpful to call him insane ;)