On Mon, 12 May 2003 22:08:08 +0200 firstname.lastname@example.org (Jérôme Marant) wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <email@example.com> writes: > > > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving > > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on > > my systems, but if that's what RMS wants it's not a huge deal for me > > as long as they are still available. > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package > and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package > is installed. > So, from the user point of view, I don't see any benefit of moving > it elsewhere. Yes. Non-free stuff sucks, doesn't it? Instead of asking Debian to include non-Free components in main, try instead to get upstream to license the documentation in a Free manner.
Description: PGP signature