Hi Riley,
Riley Baird wrote:
> > RMS declaring that something doesn't need to be free is weird.
>
> Yeah, he seems to be upset with Debian, because he says that we
> distribute non-free software.
Yeah, and Debian considers some licenses by the FSF (namely some GFDL
versions) as non-free, too. IIRC there is even a special mailing list
for people who want to make Debian and FSF get to a consens about
what's "non-free".
> fwiw, I saw that John Guthrie's email bounced. Have you considered
> contacting the math department of the University of Pennsylvania to see
> if they know where he is now?
I found another mail address of him (but also at the University of
Pennsylvania: …@archimedes.math.upenn.edu) which didn't bounce. I hope
it's forwarded to his current e-mail address.
> > I didn't try it with funny-manpages as there were more or less no
> > authors listed in there. But in asr-manpages, most authors were listed
> > and it was clear that the original postings can be found in the usenet
> > group alt.sysadmin.recovery. For me that's a huge difference and the
> > reason why I started the effort for asr-manpages, but not for
> > funny-manpages.
>
> Okay, now I see why you'd want to help fix asr-manpages but not
> funny-manpages. Having the list of authors' names and email addresses is
> a big advantage over not having them.
And I'm impressed that found at least the names and mail addresses of
some of the funny-manpages author's.
> >> Now that you are making an effort to fix it, that's great. I *want*
> >> asr-manpages to be in Debian. I just don't think that you are likely to
> >> get permission from all, or even most, of the authors, and especially
> >> not in time for the jessie release.
> >
> > Not anymore after the package has been removed earlier than needed,
> > no. IMHO, there was a small chance before the removal. *sigh*
>
> *sigh*. Hopefully in Debian 9.
Indeed. Let's look forward. :-)
> > (I can see that result of the effort around funny-manpages can be
> > demotivating and frustrating. But someone taking away the chance to
> > get something fixed in time is demotivating and frustrating, too. So
> > please be less impatient when you file an RM bug next time.)
>
> Okay, I will. Just confirming, in future would it be okay to file an RM
> bug against a package with an RC bug that hasn't seen activity in a
> year, provided I express my intentions in the report and give the
> maintainer a week to respond?
Sounds sane and gives anyone who wants to fix an RC bug a chance to do
so.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
