🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6uphsj$bcc$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>,
Benoit Goudreault-Emond <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> I beleive RMS meant only the actual technical documentation which is
> required for programming.  What RMS would like is for every
> programmer to be able to modify the *technical* content of the
> manual; other types of contents could have a more restrictive
> license.

Would this be a bit like how things are with Perl?  The official
distribution documentation (man pages) are free, come with the source
and can be modified, but there are many other books about Perl
available, none of which are a problem since their existence doesn't
make Perl into something that is only documented in a proprietary way.

Or does RMs hold the (IMHO ridiculous) position that if someone writes
a book about GNU Emacs, then the content of that book[*] should[**] be
given away free?  I hope not, as I really don't see how writing a
proprietary book about a free (and well-documented, but then all
systems should be well-documented anyway[***]) system makes the system
less free...

Donal.
[* Not necessarily the physical form though, as paper and ink are
   physical commodities and the book would cost something to produce. ]
[** I'm not saying that the information content of that book should
    never be given away free either.  This is really a matter for the
    author in question, possibly in collaboration with the publisher. ]
[*** That is really a rant for another thread. ]
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. +44-161-275-6137
--
If you staple a penguin to the head of a gnu, the result won't catch herring...