On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:46:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > In the case of GNU Emacs, for example, there is a problem. Code has > > been copied from the program (GPL'd) to the manual (GFDL'd). The > > manual is a derived work of a GPL'd work, but is distributed only > > under the GFDL. The FSF may legally do this *only* because they own > > the copyright on all of the code in Emacs and on all of the text in > > the manual. Nobody else has the freedom to modify the system of > > code+manual in the ways that the FSF routinely uses. > > Actually, that's not entirely true. To the extent that a chunk of > published code is purely functional and lacking in "creative > expression", or meets either the "de minimis" or the "fair use" > standard of affirmative defense, Not valid in many jurisdictions. Nothing that relies on this to be free can be considered acceptable by Debian, or anybody else who works internationally. [Rest of the argument fails with this removed] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature