Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual

[Matthew Mundell]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> But I think that this "freedom" argument is flawed.  "Freedom" means
> something different to everyone, so it's not a very good way to convince
> other people.  Especially in the context of the Free Software movement,
> I understand "free" to apply to the program itself, not its user:
> the program (or the doc) itself is "free", can't be harnessed/hijacked by
> anyone.  It quite directly implies that people aren't "free" to use it as
> they please.

That sounds more like the program is being protected than freed.