Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
Similar to the freedoms protected by not providing propreitary
code on the GNU system.
If the manuals are not free for users to modify, derive from
and further distribute their changes, then they must be removed from
the distribution, that people rely on to provide them with entirely
free software.
> It is your claim that this is done to protect the user's freedom.
> By removing the GFDLed documentation, the user does not gain the
> freedom to modify the GNU manifesto. The user does not gain the
> freedom to use a manual without the GNU manifesto.
I understand. By not distributing adobe acrobat, the user
also fails to gain the freedom to read and modify propreitary
encrypted PDF files.
We son''t do that, since when there is the lack, some one
would get the itch to scratch it. Perhaps the lack of documentation
shall inspire some people to provide truly free documentation?
> So please, answer this question: what freedom of the user is
> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
I hope that helps.
manoj
--
A bird in the hand is dead. -- Rhonda Boozer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: