Regarding the status of the elisp-manual in testing:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/elisp-manual/news/20060805T210823Z.html
FYI: The status of the elisp-manual source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 21-2.8-2
Current version: (not in testing)
Hint: <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon>
# 20060802
Bug #374571: [NONFREE-DOC:GFDL1.1olisfcbc] elisp-manual contains
non-free material
You said:
Even if someone else wants to take over and update it, it might be
impossible to do so because of the license.
The situation you describe is exactly what the GFDL was designed to
avoid. I don't understand how the GFDL prevents you from updating a
manual. Using the elisp manual as an example, you are free to update or
change absolutely everything in the manual, provided you maintain a few
invariant paragraphs relating to copying the document. In effect, you
can change everything except the sections that explain terms of the
license.
I understand there have been some situations where an author attempted
to undermine the license by declaring an entire document to be
invariant. This is clearly not the case here, though.
To a certain extent I understand where the concerns come from, but it
seems misplaced to lump documentation produced with the express purpose
of being Free Documentation in the same category as proprietary code.
Tyler
--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
