"Michael Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 5/30/07, Max Hyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're not allowed to change or discard that lump. Isn't it at least >> *understandable* that many believe this document is unfree? > > Given one particular invariant section that always appears in FSF/GNU > GFDL'ed documentation, my preferred analogy is, "You can't skip the > commercials."
To be clear about this: I do not object to Debian organizing itself how it sees fit. I am not a Debian developer; I may never be a Debian developer. This is how the Debian process dealt with the issue: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 and I respect that. BUT I find it absolutely astounding that people think that this vote is a basis for going round removing documentation without providing an alternative. And, to remove GNU documentation from Emacs is tantamount to vandalism. It would be better to move the whole package to non-free rather than remove the documentation. It's such an insane thing to do. Of course... if lots of packages are moved to non-free I might as well use ubuntu. I've never had to use non-free before. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
