Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:15 +0200, David Kastrup <email@example.com> said:
>> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <email@example.com>
>>>> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
>>>> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
>>> Similar to the freedoms protected by not providing propreitary
>>> code on the GNU system.
>> There is no freedom protected by that. Proprietary code is not in
>> the GNU system so that people using the GNU system are not kept
>> from helping their neighbors and themselves with the source code.
>> Not being allowed to modify or throw out the GNU Manifesto from a
>> 500+-page document is not keeping them from using and modifying the
> I am prevented from making a small version of the manual to
> go along with the emacs prc I hav made for my palm device; since
> memory all limited.
Not at all. You are prevented from _distributing_ such a manual, and
I have not ever seen such a project. It would probably be easy enough
to get permission from the FSF for such a version without the GNU
manifesto if you could show its usefulness.
> I do not have the freedom to make a small little cheat cheet ased
> on the manual, without adding stuff the removes the space available
> for my MP3's.
Your MP3s. Now that's funny. Both because you use patented file
formats without thinking twice, and because the space that the
invariant sections of the GNU Emacs manual take up is _minuscule_
compared to even a single MP3.
> Just because this is a freedom you do not care about does not mean
> it is a freedom that Debian does not care about.
But Debian does not _provide_ freedoms. It just takes them away.
Throwing out the Emacs manual does not give the user any freedom.
>> But they are. The only sections not allowed to be modified or
>> removed are not relevant to using and changing the software. They
>> are secondary sections with non-technical contents. In this case,
>> the GNU Manifesto, the GPL, and the section "Distribution". Not
>> being allowed to change them does not stop the manual from being
>> adapted to changes in the code.
> I I want to boil down the manual to one or two pages, then
> the extraneous bits are burdensome.
As are copyright notices and licenses. Neither of which you may
remove when distributing code.
> You have decided that is not a freedom you care about. I differ.
But you don't care enough for that freedom to actually write a one or
two page manual. And you don't provide the user with any freedom, but
rather take away possibilities from him by refusing to let him use the
Emacs manual under the GFDL.
>>> then they must be removed from the distribution, that people rely
>>> on to provide them with entirely free software.
>> So no freedom of the user gets protected in the process, merely his
> Semantics. I need to be free to move the doc to my phone.
But you don't gain that freedom by removing a manual. You can only
provide that freedom by _writing_ a manual, not by removing it.
And nobody cares enough about that freedom to actually bother writing
> It is an important freedom for me, but for you it is convenience.
You are twisting the meanings around again. You are _not_ providing
the user with any freedoms by removing a GFDLed manual. You are, at
best (and that is debatable) providing him with the "convenience" not
to have to look at the license in order to know that it likely could
be, in some way or other, DFSG-compliant.
> Are only the freedoms you consider important really freedoms, and
> the rest mere conveniences to be removed as someone sees fit?
Debian is removing GFDLed documentation, not the FSF.
>> Well, where is the Debian project to start a non-GFDLed manual for
> Where? I am not sure I know what that means. Geographical
> location? I don't think that has any meaning. Place for software
> collaboration? well, we can do it on alioth, or a doc or emacs
> related mailing list. Why is this relevant?
If you really think hard, you might think of a reason. Software does
not come magically into existence unless someone writes it.
>> It shows that the talk of "protection" is nonsense.
> You lack of imagination is your problem.
I prefer working with real documentation instead of imaginary
documentation that somebody imagines to be freer because it does not
contain the GNU manifesto as an indelible part, nor anything else.
The FSF, not being satisfied with the available situation, rewrote
software and documentation according to their ideas of freedom.
Debian has different standards, but does not bother rewriting anything
itself. Instead it hopes that it can pressure upstream to adapt to
Debian's standards, by withholding the freedoms they don't consider
sufficient for their taste from their users.
If they really bothered about the freedoms of their users, they'd work
on projects intended to _provide_ those freedoms.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum