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

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

Jérôme Marant <jmarant@nerim.net> wrote:

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software and the 
> > whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the FSF doesn't have to 
> > follow everyone else's definition of freedom).
>   "The whole thing"? Emacs itself?

No.  Ripping out the non-free parts has been done before for other
> >> You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals.
> >> This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals.
> >
> > Some of us don't care for non-free manuals either.  There are a number of 
> > cases where I choose to use free software over non-free software that 
> > meets my current needs somewhat better.  I'm glad Debian helps me make 
> > that choice, and I don't understand why documentation would be any 
> > different.
>   Probably because free equivalents of non-free docs are not likely
>   to appear, unless those non-free docs get their license changed.
>   People don't like writing docs.

That's a very poor reason to accept a non-free license.  The following
is _not_ something I want to seed in the DFSG:

 - Documentation is exempt from the above criteria for freeness.  No-one
   likes to write documentation, so we'll accept whatever we can get
   into Debian.
> >> Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing
> >> applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork
> >> documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the
> >> Emacs manual.
> >
> > I see the motivations as very similar.
>   Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs?

That's not relevant.  The need for them will be made more obvious if the
non-free version get moved to main.  Should we have accepted netscape
into main a few years ago then it was _the_ standard and nothing else
was available?


Reply to: