Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Is there some drawback that we'd have to encounter if things like
>> the Elisp manual were dual-licenced GPL and GFDL?
>
> I believe in general documentation for free software should be
> (dual) licensed with the same license as the software itself, it
> makes it much easier to move stuff between them.

Actually, you can't move from GPLed code into dual-licenced stuff
without having to forego the second licence, unless you are the
copyright holder.

However, in the case of the Elisp manual, this would at least be an
improvement for non-copyright holders as opposed to not being allowed
to distribute the manual at all after moving GPLed code into it.

> Like reusing good code comments and doc string in the manual,

Which could be done only by the copyright holder unless one would give
up the non-GPLed licence option.

> reusing parts of the manual as doc strings or comments,

Yes, that part would be important.

> or even embedding sections from the manual in the code (like using a
> manual section as the basis for one of the "assistants" Lars talked
> about).

This too.  I mean, having the manual available as hyperlinked
infopages actually _makes_ it pretty much an integral part of Emacs.
And for this purpose, it really should have a GPL-compatible licence.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum