Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>:
> > Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
> > documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
> It was argued in
OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to
documentation. But I understand now that the binaries and al.
cannot come along with the documentation.
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a
> > >> >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
> > > 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.
No, code + documentation.
Jérôme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org>