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

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

Claus Färber <claus@xn--frber-gra.muc.de> wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith  schrieb/wrote:
> > Claus Färber <claus@xn--frber-gra.muc.de> wrote:
> >> Sorry, but that's plain wrong. For a GPL program including an online
> >> help viewer or calling an external help viewer, the online help is
> >> just "data" that does not have to match the licence of the program.
> > That is _not_ what he meant.  He meant cut/paste docs from the manual
> > into the software to have it displayed either as a tooltip or
> > otherwise.   The documentation needs to become an intrinsic part of
> > the code to do that.
> It can be a seperate XML (or whatever) file that's only read by the  
> software.

But that's not what he meant!  Please don't change what he said to fit
your view.

That would be a major inconvenience to do in elisp instead of 
simply insert the text in the code.

> > As for `So info can't display non-GPL documentation either?', well
> > sometimes I wonder about that too.  The info file provides computed
> > information to let reader program know where the information resides,
> > and what information resides there, much like a library.
> The same is basically true for HTML and XML documents. Can you have a  
> free web browser display non-free web pages? Should Galeon (or Konqueror  
> or ...) refuse to display the FSF's homepage because it is not GPL'd?

Difference between a code interpreter and a library.  You have to
consider the Info reader as an interpreter to get away with this.
I suppose that's a correct analogy, so you can read non-free docs
in Info.


Reply to: