On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:45:57 +0200 (CEST) Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> wrote: > En réponse à David B Harris <david@eelf.ddts.net>: > > > > 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. > > I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components > are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations. You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The difference between that and asking to "include components in main" is irrelevant and a lawyer's point. > RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL. I don't care what RMS may or may not do. Why do *you*? It is completely irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the licenses are Free, or not. It's that simple. So, to sum up: I don't care what RMS may or may not be doing at this very moment. I don't care about your opinions towards GNU. The only thing I care about is whether the GNU Emacs documentation is covered by a non-Free license or a Free license.
Attachment:
pgpsAm96CGCpw.pgp
Description: PGP signature