Re: problems of the fdl

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:24:11 +0900
> 
> This license stuff is an enthusiasm-killer.

Yep.  It surely killed my enthusiasm ;-)

> The Open Source License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
> gives an explicit definition of External Deployment.  I don't know
> what rms (and/or the FSF/Eben Moglen) have to say about the OSL.

I think he doesn't like it, but I might be mistaken.

> Do you realize, Eli, that without the explicit permission of the FSF
> you personally are not free to combine the Emacs sources and the
> Texinfo manual into a Knuthian "literate programming" document, and
> distribute it?

Sure, I know that.  I've read the relevant disputes at the time, so
I'm aware of the issues people had with the FDL, this being one of
them.

> It's not
> even obvious to me that the FSF (assuming that rms has as much say in
> this as I think he does) would grant permission to do so.  I think rms
> probably would, but I'm not sure.  (What license would he suggest?)

IIRC, he didn't think this was an important enough situation to bother
about, but I could again be wrong.

Thanks for the other pointers, btw.