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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

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: pgpWe9jhdAd4p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: