Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
> JÃ©rÃŽme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> David Kastrup <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented
>>> form, they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and
>>> instead try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel
>>> with BSD utilities all around.
>>> But the current course is pure duplicity.
>> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents
>> under the GFDL makes documentation free.
> Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had
> been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally
> be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom?
You want to duke anecdotal stories around?
When you come down to wanting to listen to practical
>> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly
>> acceptable, while they would not with GPL?
> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the
> GNU project from Debian.
That does not logically follow. If some non-free software
enhances free software, there is no need to throw out the baby with
the bath water. Err, at least, not in my world.
> Free software with unfree documentation is a sham.
I am glad you agree. Can you see if upstream would make the
> If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't be
> used like free software, and you should remove it, too.
Err, the _software_ sure can. I can use make, even if the
software documentation is non-free -- so I am not seeing where you
are coming from.
 The plural of anecdote is not data.
brokee, n: Someone who buys stocks on the advice of a broker.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C