> Isn't one of the specific instances of this issue the desire to copy > some of the constraints information from the source, which would need to > go into the user manual rather than internals documentation? > > And in some cases a function index with documentation may be precisely > what the end-user needs -- think runtime libraries.
But in both of these cases, there are basically two separate things: a prose description (in these cases of what constraints do and an overview of the library) and a separate list of details. The first would be a well-written document and the latter would be automatically generated. So I can see the argument that having two separate documents here may be valuable from OTHER than a licensing viewpoint. (I'm not sure whether I AGREE with it or not, but that may be partly where RMS is coming from.)
