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

Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages



Yavor Doganov <yavor@doganov.org> wrote:

> Ð? Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:30:58 -0400, Peter S Galbraith напиÑ?а:
> 
> > 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"?

Absolutely, according to Debian standards of free software.

> > 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.

So fill a bug report.  It should be called vdsfg or something.

> 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. 

Okay, the gist of the rest of your post if that you don't agree with the
existence of our `non-free' section.  Fine.  Neither does a minority of
DDs since we voted on that in the past as well, as I recall.  I'm not
going to respond to any of it because it's pretty much all insulting
flame bait.

Throwing out non-free will throw out yours docs at the same time.  Be
careful what you wish for.  Debian doesn't make a distinction between a
bit non-free and a lot non-free.  The non-free archive is non-free but
distributable; that's it.

Peter



Reply to: