Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
LinuxCon: The tragedy of the commons gatekeepers
Posted Sep 28, 2012 15:06 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
While this distinction makes sense in everyday life, I don't believe it is wise for an organization like the FSF to apply different standards to different kinds of work - at least not if they are all covered by copyright. But this does explain why the Emacs manual is considered 'free documentation' even if a program with invariant sections would not be considered free software.
Posted Sep 28, 2012 16:33 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
The original GNU manuals only permitted verbatim copying, so compared to that, the GFDL is more free. Still, I think that the idea of invariant sections, if it was ever useful, does more harm than good and should be dropped; there are plenty of other ways to communicate effectively, and distributions would have no motivation to censor the GNU manuals by taking out the free software advocacy if the sections were not invariant.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds