[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

Jérôme Marant <jmarant@nerim.net> wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> > Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> 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.


Reply to: