David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. 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.
To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for example) is more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra costs) to publishers. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
