On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <email@example.com> a tapoté :
>> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> >> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
>> >> ...
>> > They can provide a translated version. They only must add the original
>> > text along, which is not a real burden with this kind of documents (it
>> > does not change the usability).
>> No they can't: the permission notice at the top of
>> /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/GNU on my system says:
>> Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
>> of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
>> permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
>> recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this
>> Modified versions may not be made.
> Hum, this is apparently very specific to the manifesto... As long as I
> know, it's the only text that have such copyright note in all
> www.gnu.org. I do not know why. It may be historic but it sounds
> problematic, indeed.
All the files listed in Bug #207932 have essentially equivalent
licenses, and a few that I checked have the equivalent licenses on the
web site, as well.
> But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual, which
> clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is provided?
That's why I gave the second example in my earlier message, of a
practical reason why you would, in practice, want to modify such a
document, beyond just making a translation (while retaining proper
> To get back to your example, would it lower the usability of emacs if
> the Japanese government is unable to provide the GNU manifesto in
> japanese? It would only lower the interest of this text being shipped
> with emacs to japanese people, IMHO.
I'm not sure I follow what you say, but I see two possibilities:
a) It would lower the usability Emacs, in which case there
is a real obstacle to Debian users' freedoms (in that I can not take
the text, translate it into Japanese, and share it with my friend who
does not speak English)
b) It does not lower the usability, in which case it has no business
being in the package.
Personally, I think it's a great essay and would love to share it
around (including making it more visible in the Emacs packaging); I'm
just disappointed that RMS will not let me share it with my friends
(and so, I maintain, it is not eligible for inclusion in Debian).