Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages
В Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:06 -0400, Peter Galbraith написа:
>> Are you saying that removing the manual makes Emacs "more free"?
>
> Absolutely, according to Debian standards of free software.
I will try to grasp the meaning of these words when Debian stops
packaging and distributing the NVidious drivers, pptview, "smart"
packages that download and install Microsoft fonts and Macromedia
Flash and everything related that you and I don't have trouble
identifying as non-free. Until then, these words are not only
meaningless, they are ridiculous.
The Debian Project is like a drug dealer trying to persuade me that
milk is dangerous for my health.
> I'm not going to respond to any of it because it's pretty much all
> insulting flame bait.
I do not intend to insult anyone; all DDs, regardless of their
motivation, are doing a good work for the benefit of the whole
society (except the DDs and Debian maintainers who are packaging
non-free software; they're not different from the developers of
proprietary software so I cannot respect them regardless of their
technical skills or "dedication").
> 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.
Stop distributing non-free software and I'll try to believe that the
anti-GFDL campaign is a campaign for freedom. Now it is just a
pathetic attempt to keep Debian's old reputation as a project that
cares for freedom -- this is no longer true.
This whole discussion is offtopic for -emacsen, strictly speaking.
But Emacs is much more than a program and the act of maiming is
indicative and symbolic for the the Debian Project. Emacs is the
first component that was developed for the GNU system. Saying that
Emacs is usable only for experienced users is like saying that
GNU/Linux is only for experienced users. Saying that people can use
Emacs without the manual is like saying that a guitar without strings
is still a musical instrument -- it is, e.g. you can use it as a drum,
but it's not a guitar.
Reply to: