Re: Bug#169101: cluttered .diff.gz
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:42:06PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
>
> > Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> >
> >> But using GraphViz, even in this way, is not consistent with FSF
> >> policies--so it would be rather easy to force you to change it,
> >> theoretically speaking.
> >
> > Can you explain which FSF policy this is inconsistent with?
>
> GNU software must not recommend non-free software.
And what would you recommend in its place? Honest question.
This is my last word on the subject, since I've said it all before, and
I'm just as busy as you guys are. If the following sounds rude, please
just put it down to frustration with this topic and a lack of good coffee.
First, you don't have to use dot. Change HAVE_DOT to 'no' in the input
cfg file, and you'll get whatever crappy graphs can be done without dot.
If Debian wishes to impose a technically inferior choice on their users
for political reasons, that would definitely be in keeping with the spirit
of many decisions from the FSF. Regretful, but hey.
Second, as I've said before, if someone can find a libre tool that does
as good a job as dot, and that doxygen can work with, then I'll gladly
use it. I don't particularly love the graphviz software, it's simply
what's available and what doxygen knows how to interface with. I'm not
going to give up reuse of existing tools and write "GNUdot" from scratch
just because the FSF thinks the graphviz source license is not free /enough/.
If you go with the first choice, then as upstream maintainer I'd appreciate
it if you put some kind of notice on the index page, e.g., "for readable
but not-free-enough graphs, download the pregenerated pages from..."
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002
Reply to: