Re: New DFSG-compliant emacs packages

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

There is no freedom protected by that.  Proprietary code is not in the
GNU system so that people using the GNU system are not kept from
helping their neighbors and themselves with the source code.  Not
being allowed to modify or throw out the GNU Manifesto from a
500+-page document is not keeping them from using and modifying the
source.

>         If the manuals are not free for users to modify, derive from
>  and further distribute their changes,

But they are.  The only sections not allowed to be modified or removed
are not relevant to using and changing the software.  They are
secondary sections with non-technical contents.  In this case, the GNU
Manifesto, the GPL, and the section "Distribution".  Not being allowed
to change them does not stop the manual from being adapted to changes
in the code.

>  then they must be removed from the distribution, that people rely
>  on to provide them with entirely free software.

So no freedom of the user gets protected in the process, merely his
convenience.

>> 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?

Well, where is the Debian project to start a non-GFDLed manual for
Emacs?

>> So please, answer this question: what freedom of the user is
>> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
>
>         I hope that helps.

It shows that the talk of "protection" is nonsense.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum