From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: <878y84t52h.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1103063048 2877 80.91.229.6 (14 Dec 2004 22:24:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 14 23:24:01 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CeKs3-0008RX-00 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:10:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CeL2C-0001bF-Ud for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:20:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CeL1G-0001Wr-Q4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:19:47 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CeL1F-0001Vk-A8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:19:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CeL1E-0001VM-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:19:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CeKqu-0001fU-6I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CeKmn-0001sp-IE; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:04:50 -0500 Original-To: bob@rattlesnake.com In-Reply-To: (Robert J. Chassell's message of "Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:19:29 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:31127 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:17466 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:31127 "Robert J. Chassell" writes: > ... My issue is not with the GFDL per se. My issue is that it is > not GPL-compatible, yet we use it for something that forms an > integrated and tightly coupled part of Emacs and evolves with it. > > And that defeats the "Public" in GPL since it requires the copyright > holder for normal maintenance work of derived versions. > > I do not understand you. First, the GFDL is not for code. Second, > anyone can change the body of a GFDL's work. DOC strings and manual entries are material that are frequently copied between those differently licenced items. Customization entries link into the manual, and manual entries contain code snippets doing customization. Code examples in the manual make obvious candidates for copying into GPLed code for Emacs. And so on. > This means that you can modify code under the GNU GPL and then > document your modification. And you may distribute the result, > attempting to charge if you wish for both code and documentation. > Or, of course, you may give away both. You have the freedom. I am talking about working with existent code and manual entries. Of course, what you write yourself, you are free to licence as needed for the case in question. > The GFDL is different. It does not create a ban, but puts up a > barrier (that is what the front and back cover text requirement is > about). The goal is that the barrier be somewhat high, but not too > high. The barrier prohibits moving GPLed material into the manual unless you are the copyright holder, and moving material out of the manual into GPLed code. > Please explain further how GFDL actions defeat the "Public" in GPL, > especially since invariant sections have existed in the licenses for > past documentation. We already have established that the previous licence for the Emacs Lisp manual had the same basic problems. I am not talking about returning to the old licence now (even though this would save the XEmacs developers headaches), but whether it is a good idea to licence Emacs with the integral Texinfo manuals under two incompatible licences. This has been the case even before we switched to the GFDL as far as I can see. But that does not mean that it was a good idea at this time, and in the mean time, the Emacs Lisp manual has become quite closer integrated with Emacs. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum