On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:33:38 +0200 email@example.com (Jérôme Marant) wrote: > > 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. > > Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree > with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be. Playing the devil's advocate here, let's pretend that "legally" it doesn't. You still think we should include obviously non-Free documentation in main? I mean, doesn't that go against the *spirit* of Free Software, at the very least? > >> 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 > > Because it was RMS's reply that was quoted in the first message of the > thread, don't you recall? You mentioned a specific example; Emacs documentation. Thus, whatever political goals RMS may have is irrelevant to the discussion, as is his thoughts on the nature of non-Free stuff being "ethical". *We* only care about whether it's Free or not. We don't what RMS may have done in the past for Free Software, not in this _specific_ example. We only care whether or not it's Free. > > irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the > > licenses are Free, or not. It's that simple. > > And also if we have a hope to see the license being modified. Of course, we all do - and you're wanting to get it changed by ignoring its non-Free nature? > > 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. > > No you don't care: you don't use Emacs. Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more than it affects a seasoned user.
Description: PGP signature