Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Jérôme Marant <email@example.com> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> > 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.
> But you didn't reply to questions I asked yesterday following
> your examples, embedding pieces of docs in software that is.
I'm not sure what question that was. Perhaps it was answered in the
message you missed? (see below).
> >> AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation.
> > I've addressed this and you never commented.
> I'm sorry if I haven't. Could you point me to this reference please?
> >> 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.
> Your right that it's not relevant but shouldn't we consider the world
> we live in?
No. That would dilute the DSFG. Don't evaluate licenses based on
the need for the licensed material. Evaluate it in abstraction of it.