On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:35:47 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its normal >>> operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to separate >>> them. >> >> Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses. > Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. Is that the only reason? Why not dual-license, then? > And the GPL is not really well-suited for publications in print: the > obligation to provide the full source code at cost means additional > obligations for a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of > the end result, even though no sane person would actually have a use > for the source of that _particular_ publication instead of the one > accompanying his copy of Emacs. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
