[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I am ANGRY with Debian.



On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Nic James Ferrier wrote:
> "Michael Marsh" <michael.a.marsh@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <max@hyre.net> wrote:
> >> You're not allowed to change or discard that lump.  Isn't it at least
> >> *understandable* that many believe this document is unfree?
> >
> > Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU
> > GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the
> > commercials."
> 
> To be clear about this:
> 
> I do not object to Debian organizing itself how it sees fit. I am not
> a Debian developer; I may never be a Debian developer.
> 
> This is how the Debian process dealt with the issue:
> 
>   http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
> 
> and I respect that.
> 
> BUT I find it absolutely astounding that people think that this vote
> is a basis for going round removing documentation without providing an
> alternative.

"An alternative"?  Re-writing the Emacs manual (IIRC this was the 
sticking point early on in this thread) is not an easy task.  At the 
very least I would expect this to take some time.  In the mean time, the 
maintainer(s) still had to follow the DFSG and whatnot, so I cannot see 
what choice they had...

> And, to remove GNU documentation from Emacs is tantamount to
> vandalism. It would be better to move the whole package to non-free
> rather than remove the documentation. It's such an insane thing to do.

I can see your point - although my wording would have been somewhat less 
radical.  Separating the software and documentation is not a good thing.  
But, alas, they were under different licences to start with :-|

I think your anger is misdirected - Debian behaves exactly as promised: 
The DFSG rules. And moving the emacs documentation to non-free was a 
logical consequence of it.

> Of course... if lots of packages are moved to non-free I might as well
> use ubuntu. I've never had to use non-free before.

Obviously you're free to do so. After all, Ubuntu isn't bound by the 
DFSG, but something uncannily similar:
    http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing

Regards

-- 
Karl E. Jorgensen
karl@jorgensen.org.uk  http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/
karl@jorgensen.com     http://karl.jorgensen.com
==== Today's fortune:
Parallel lines never meet, unless you bend one or both of them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: