Re: FYI: GNU Emacs Manual to be moved to non-free
On 14 May 2003 12:29:18 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> Funny. Seems to me that demanding libr=E9 documentation keeps to
> the spirit of freedom of software; rather than insisting parts
> of software be immutable and unremovable.
> fine fine. let me just re-arrange your 1's and 0's and misquote
> Funny [...] that documentation keeps [...] software [...]
> immutable and unremovable.
> hmmm, that's not what you Meant? but that's what you Said, all i
> did was Excerpt some pieces. don't Blame me for exercising my
Some of the my most cherished expressions of my creativity are
the code that I write. I am appreciative of the mellifluous cadence
of contributory blocks building to the finale of the result, to the
elegant simplicity of transforming an abstract alorithm into an
enchanting dance of procedures and classes.
Are you suggesting that I distribute my code under terms that
barbarians could not destroy the enthralling buety of my code?
If so, what are you doing in a channel about free software?
If not, why should documentation be different? Are you
implying that my code has less artistic value than some guys
(umm, imagine me with a smile while saying this, I am not incensed)
"...one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." Robert Firth
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C