From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Finney Subject: Re: GFDL Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 13:35:59 +1000 Message-ID: <7w61y68lb4.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <878v5wwr96.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <6D1B3E63-A3F0-447E-A1F4-12F8B3156DB9@gmail.com> <513BD73C.3050704@gmail.com> <58FF2382-A0A8-47E2-BEA0-8E88542C6638@gmail.com> <7wbo85qh62.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <87vc6ceigf.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <86ppwkij9r.fsf@somewhere.org> <87a9nofpvu.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43060) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgRkn-0006wX-Aq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2013 23:36:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgRki-00029G-8x for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2013 23:36:17 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:53467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgRki-000298-2i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2013 23:36:12 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UgRkg-00036h-HK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:36:10 +0200 Received: from rasputin.madmonks.org ([64.150.190.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:36:10 +0200 Received: from ben+emacs by rasputin.madmonks.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:36:10 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Bastien writes: > "Sebastien Vauban" > writes: > > > FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual? > > Because the manual is part of GNU Emacs, which is part of the GNU > project, and every project in the GNU project is required to publish > manuals in GNU FDL only. Dual licensing is not an option here. Wow, I didn't realise the FSF policy was *that* restrictive. Publishing the manual under both FDL and GPL should satisfy the FSF's legitimate requirements for their work, so I don't know how they justify refusing a manual that happens to also be published under some non-FDL license. Do you have a reference from some FSF official for that restriction? > There are many discussions about this... a can of (dead) worms. Agreed, thank you. -- \ “Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an | `\ affirmation, but as a question.” —Niels Bohr | _o__) | Ben Finney