Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
>> OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to
>> documentation.
>
> I'm not so sure. The Info file isn't dumped raw into a buffer for
> display. The info files provides offsets to each Info node such that a
> browser that quickly jump to any Node and display only that node. Look
> at the contents of /usr/share/info/emacs-21/emacs.gz and tell me that
> Info files don't provide hooks to software.
It looks like references between nodes but it doesn't look particular
to emacs, but to any info reader I guess.
>> But I understand now that the binaries and al.
>> cannot come along with the documentation.
>>
>> > > > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal
>> > > > out of 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.
>
> I'm still not sure I understand the question. Do does a software
> license handle mixing code and documentation? Well, release the Emacs
That's it.
> manual under the GPL and I can create derived works that combine both
> under the GPL. I may extract bits from the manual to make balloon help
> texts, or to make quick help texts under a menu. In those cases I
Hmm, my question was rather: GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible
code, but does it handle GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible
documentation? Or does it simply handle GPL thingy + non-GPL-compatible
thingy whatsoever? (I'm afraid I did not reread GPL lately).
> obviously wouldn't include the GNU manifesto along with my short
> excerpts. But I'm not a vilain. So if I redistributed the manual, I'd
> leave it intact and the manifesto would stay in. It would be common
> sense rather than being forced-to in compliance with the license.
Yes, clearly.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: