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

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.


Jérôme Marant


Reply to: