Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Please do not Cc me on mailing list posts.
>
> What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
> assume that "No Junk Mail" signs have an "(Unless it's too much effort)"
> rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T headers and the list
> guidelines in the developers-reference do? What the hell is the deal?
I use emacs and gnus. If you were to make those programs support the
header in question, then I'll follow it, quite automagically.
And I can also try to remember your preference. But I'm not going to
bend over backwards to deal with a nonstandard header. Can I suggest
that you use mail software which enables you to avoid duplicates?
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > My proposed guidelines, which don't pretend to the legal precision
> > that Branden prizes, refer to whether the amount of text is a large
> > chunk.
>
> I don't really think that helps. The worst case scenario is something like
> having every manpage (or infopage) come up with a different free software
> manifesto of dubious worth that's never allowed to be removed from the
> document; not today, not tomorrow, not when the original author dies,
> and probably not even x years after the author's death if the documents
> maintained, and x ever becomes fixed again.
Yes, that does suck. But this is an argument against only some cases,
not all. Can we make a prudential judgment about whether the entity
in question is likely to remain around?
> Is that the sort of environment -- where you can't customise that
> particular feature of your environment -- really reminscent of the sort
> of freedoms we espouse? I don't think it is, personally.
I agree. The question is: how much of a deal-breaker is it?
> If we're going to move the document around, it seems better just to put
> it in non-free. Having to `apt-get install debian-political' to get at
> (eg) the emacs manual, doesn't seem like a real service to users.
Putting emacs in non-free is a service to users? If emacs is split
into two packages, then either way the user has to install something
new.
Reply to: