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

Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages

Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006 19:10, vous avez écrit :

> > 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.

These days, I wouldn't encourage people to try Emacs.
It's not nonsense, it's my opinion. You don't share it. Fair enough.

> > Experienced users know Emacs enough to get along without its
> > documentation,
> 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.

Currently the lisp reference is not even provided by Emacs. And I bet
you can use Emacs for everyday's tasks without it's user guide.

> > 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.

Nothing to do with it. They can even read the manual from gnu.org.

> > 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.

It _does_ provide a lecture of it: when people have to grab packages from
non-free, they get de facto warned about what is problematic toward licensing.
Emacs is free software, it's documentation is not.

> 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.

No, they won't expect that because package descriptions as well as
changelogs and copyright files are informative enough for them to

Jérôme Marant

Reply to: