Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
bpalmer at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 01:48:43 EST 2004
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 02:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Robert J. Chassell
<bob at rattlesnake.com> wrote:
> Evidentally, I have not been clear. Nothing in this thread that I
> said should have suggested that interest from independent publishers
> drives the use of the GFDL with regard to the elisp reference manual.
> Instead, I have tried to say that the goal is to persuade others to
> choose the GFDL over a `Creative Commons license with a commercial
> restriction' or similar license. The GFDL is better.
If using the GFDL on the emacs manual is as a persuasive example rather
than to benefit the emacs project directly with the restrictions of the GFDL,
why wouldn't licensing it both under the GPL and as GFDL serve the same
purpose? That'd make it clear to organizations that the GFDL is not
the same as GPL,
plus allow emacs itself as a free project tightly coupled to the manual, to
benefit. (To give credit, David Kastrup's point on the tight couplings between
a GPLed project and the GFDLed project is spot on, I think).
More information about the XEmacs-Beta