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

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu>:
> > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> > 1.1
> > > ...
> Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
> non-free.

Or take a free version of the Emacs (say, from Emacs 20, if that's the
case), and include it. I doubt command line options have changed much.

> > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
> > various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying).
> > See Bug #154043.
> This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna
> modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?).

Someone who wants to publish them in a book? Convert them to HTML?
Excerpt large portions of them for an article?

> It is neither documentation
> nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now).

Those of us saying that everything Debian distributes is software will
continue to say it here - this is software. It's very very simple
software, all it does is instructor an interpreter like less or cat to
draw characters to a a terminal. But it's software, even if it's not a
"program" or documentation for a program.

> Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO.

We might as well add non-free programs that no one wants to modify to
main, too. It won't make Debian any less free.

I think qmail would make a great first package for this new "if I don't
want to modify it, it's free no matter what" policy; I hear it's written
so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his
"vision" of the code.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: