On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
