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

Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages



В Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:23:15 -0500, Mike O'Connor написа:

>>  But don't ship non-free software while trying to convince us
>>that you're devoted to free software.  Or, alternatively, continue
>>shipping it, but stop lying blatantly your users.
> 
> The social contract is pretty clear on this.  In light of the social
> contract, I don't see how this is blatant lying.

So you don't see the contradiction.  

> That is not the intention with the GNU manuals.

Then stop giving the GNU manuals as an example.  

> There would be reasons for keeping the non-free section with or
> without the GNU manuals.

Yes, the "popularity" of Debian, which is of higher priority than
users' freedom.

> But whether or not Debian is going to keep the non-free section is
> not really relevant to this discussion.

This is irrelevant to any discussion on any Debian mailing list,
because it makes people uneasy and guilty.

> Yes.  rewriting the emacs manual would be hard.  If you could help
> with this, it would certainly be appreciated.

Good luck in finding volunteers for that work.  The GNU Emacs manual
is a perfectly fine free manual for me.  If you want to prove the
contrary -- you'll have to prove that you really care about free
software, not to betray the ideals of the Free Software Movement.  You
can't teach that violence is a sin while beating your wife to death --
nobody will believe what you say.

I am working on rescuing free software that is locked in contrib
(kbedic/cbedic and gbgoffice) by assembling a free dictionary.  The
license is GNU FDL 1.2 or later.  The documentation I write is always
under that license.

>>Again, calling packaging (=developing, enhancing) and distribution of
>>non-free software "support" is outrageous.  Debian is no different
>>from the companies that develop and distribute non-free software --
>>they "support" their users too.
> 
> Are you saying that it would be better support for our users if we didn't
> provide a way of getting the emacs manual at all?

If you think that the Emacs manual is non-free, you shouldn't
distribute it as you shouldn't distribute any non-free software or
non-free documentation.  Distributing proprietary software is
effectively saying that it is not bad, that it is legitimate.  It
encourages others (your users) to stop pursuing the goal of freedom.

If the Debian project believes that giving non-free software to users
is "support", a "service" to the free software community and is
something acceptable, please don't educate me about software freedom.
There is an abyss between us.



Reply to: