Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
Jérôme Marant <email@example.com> writes:
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 17:25, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> > They could have simply dropped the docs altogether; they didn't.
>> > All they have done is separate the package into a part that the FSF
>> > says you can _completely_ and freely modify, and another part that
>> > the FSF says you can't. Install the available non-free package and
>> > get over it.
>> I already mentioned that I would find it better manageable for users
>> if the package was not split, but instead completely moved to nonfree.
>> Since Emacs is not really useful without its online docs, the
>> incomplete version in main helps nobody.
> Newbies don't use Emacs because it's not for them.
Of course, this is complete nonsense. _Everybody_ who _ever_ uses
Emacs passes through a newbie phase.
> Experienced users know Emacs enough to get along without its
Again, this is utter nonsense. I am an active Emacs developer and
maintainer of AUCTeX, and such can hardly be called inexperienced, and
I frequently need the documentation.
> and when they need it they know where to find it.
And another piece of nonsense. Being an experienced User of Emacs
does not imply being experienced with the Debian packaging system and
the outpours of the DFSG guidelines.
> Again, the split was made to make things clear toward licensing.
The purpose of Debian is to provide free software, not to provide a
lecture about it. If Emacs (as created, provided and named by the
FSF) can't be provided in Debian main according to Debians guidelines,
it should get moved as whole to non-free.
There is no sense in providing only a partly functional part in main.
And it is misleading to not prominently point this out, in startup
message, and in the name of the package (emacs21-without-docs or
emacs21-only-dfsg or similar). Otherwise, people will reasonably
expect that the package contains a packaging/compilation of Emacs in
the extent delivered by the FSF.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum