Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
В Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:30:58 -0400, Peter S Galbraith написа:
> There was a vote.
Unfortunate one.
> This new package abides by the results it and remains free.
Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
> As a bonus, they went to the trouble of packaging the docs into
> `emacs21-common-non-dfsg' and you still complain? 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.
Thanks for this "bonus". I have added "non-free" to my sources.list,
since this section no longer contains only unethical bits and it's not
a felony to have it. A few practical problems, though:
* It confuses my `apt-cache search', which now includes packages
from the non-free section. It was very convenient before, because
I was always sure that the packages I install are free software or
free documentation. Now I have to check every package manually.
* Besides the free GNU manuals, the non-free section contains
really non-free documentation. This is confusing and again, implies
manual checking.
* vrms complains that the crippled half of Emacs is non-free. This
is outrageous.
But let me put it honestly. I chose Debian because that was the GNU
distribution that I thought stood firm on the ideals of software
freedom. That's a big fat lie, actually. Developing and distributing
non-free software is fundamentally incompatible with the philosophy of
the Free Software Movement. It would be much better if the project
didn't deceive people about this. I'd prefer if the SC said something
like:
,----
| Debian will not remain 100%
| We value popularity more than users' freedom. We realise that some
| users want to install and use non-free software, so we have
| dedicated significant project resources to the sections "contrib" and
| "non-free" and integrated them in our infrastructure. Some of us are
| even developing non-free software, since we don't find it unethical or
| antisocial. The popularity and universality of our operating system
| is our top priority, so with some exceptions, we will allow non-free
| firmware in main and in the Debian Installer, to serve the needs of a
| wider audience.
`----
That would be an accurate representation of the situation. I would
really consider that the Debian Project has "higher standards" of
freedom if it was not developing/distributing non-free software,
available in all sections now. The current slogan "We are 100%
dedicated to Free Software" is a monstrous hypocrisy.
The reason that I haven't switched to other distribution is because I
still have hope that Debian will rediscover its roots and will return
to the right track from the early days; my interest in GNU/Hurd and a
few machines that are either very old or exotic architectures that
probably won't run any other GNU/Linux distro available today.
> Jérôme, I for one am glad for all the work you put into Emacs for debian.
I completely agree that the work for the cripplification of emacs21
was probably huge, non-trivial and hard. But that work should never
have been done.
Reply to: