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

Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:21:21AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> En r?ponse ? Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> > If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi
> > users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden
> > away where they're impossible to find?
> Anthony, what should we do with those files?
> Should we remove them from the pistine tarball?
> Do we have to work out the problem with RMS?

If we decide "hey, let's not distribute them in main at all", I take it
you mean.

You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream
source includes some non-free stuff, which is stripped out of the
.orig.tar.gz before Branden uploads it, eg.

I don't have any problem with an .orig.tar.gz that includes
redistributable but non-DFSG-free stuff, as long as (eg) the .diff.gz
removes those files.

Alternatively, if we keep distributing them, then we should move them
to other packages (if they're relevant to non-emacs-users, doc-debian
or a new gnu-propaganda package, say), or at least to other directories
(/usr/share/doc/emacs, eg).


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpCBil_1ZbYV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: