Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And voila, you're Cc'ing me again.
> > I know it's easy to forget, but ``Our Priorities are **Our Users**
> > and Free Software''. Putting docs for random packages in a package with
> > a completely bizarre name, and collating a bunch of docs from random
> > packages into a single package when there's no natural correlation amongst
> > those packages is a disservice to our users.
> If the primary motivation in this discussion is
> what's easiest and most convenient for the users, then obviously "keep
> it in emacs20 and keep that package in Debian" is easiest and most
> convenient.
Yeesh.
You know, there's also a reason why we have free software and our users jammed
up against each other, like that. The idea isn't to just choose one or the
other, it's to choose both.
"debian-political" makes life a pain for users, because finding some
docs is suddenly vastly unintuitive. Just allowing any invariant text
an upstream author might think is important in packages doesn't serve
the free software community. So we're obliged to find an alternative
that works for both.
Now, I don't see any problems with the doc-debian approach I suggested,
but perhaps you do: it's hard to tell since you just completely ignored
it and made your own suggestion.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Reply to: