Re: emacs without documentation nonsense
On 2006-11-15, hendrik wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:00:37AM +0000, Tyler wrote:
>> I don't know that it's enough reason to go on living, but you will find
>> those docs (in)conveniently stored in the package
>> emacs21-common-non-dfsg, in the non-free repos.
Sure i can. Anyone can. But this is not all DFSG thing about.
>> At some point I wonder if the devs will realize that they undermine
>> their efforts to encourage users to use a dfsg-free system by all but
>> forcing us into the non-free repos for basic documentation?
>
> Which devs are the ones responsible here: the Debian devs who put it
> there, or the upstream ones that presumably put non-free constraints on
> the documentatin license? Or is it all a big misunderstanding?
DFSG is Stallman's "write down your modified version of recipe", unlike
GFDL. I think users, like me (us?), must contact FSF and RMS there. It
seems, we left our developers along against them.
As result upstream doesn't change.
I've spent one year on new laptop and new sarge, starting from summer
of 2005. Using *only* debian/main i've managed to do my job.
Today, without even "man gcc", nobody will to have debian/main any
more. That's why i'm saying about living. What's living, without
successors?
More on that. I tried to have emacs skills as part of
"real programmers practice over more than 15 years", not only after RMS'
propaganda. And i'm not a programmer or debian developer, who *are* using
emacs for programming and packaging Free Software and DFSG Debian.
When all GFDL docs were removed from linux, back in 2004, i was newbie
to Debian and real problems with todays RMS: glibc (*forcing* longterm
maintainer to switch license), gcc (forcing to give away copyright,
thus some useful things are thrown away; problems why Linus Torvalds
wrote C parser fron-end from scratch (sparse)). Forking f*cking, stupid
firefox together is OK, to listen and change few things in GFDL 1.2 --
suck more.
I wish jed development will result in much better editor.
____
Reply to: