Re: xemacs wiki

"Eli Zaretskii" <[email protected]> writes:

>> is the only [practical] purpose for the fdl the ability to force
>> people to distribute ads such as the GNU manifesto?
>
> Since you don't _have_ to use invariant sections in your manuals,
> you don't need to be worried about this.

But you do have to use them if you're inheriting documentation someone
else wrote.  This is not the case with the code, where you can change
whatever you like (as long as you follow the requirements of the GPL,
such as documenting what you've done and releasing the result under
the GPL).  The apparent incompatibility between the code license and
the documentation license might become a real problem when there is a
need to include non-trivial examples in the documentation by copying
them from real code.

> And before everyone pounces on me, let me say that I don't intend to
> defend the FDL: I don't feel I know enough about the subject matter
> to even make up my mind.  I simply don't think it's justified to
> accuse the GFDL in every possible crime against free speech, that's
> all.  Whatever it is wrong about the GFDL, it's not that bad, after
> all.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.  I'm using GFDL in Wget (with
no invariant sections) and I'm happy with it.