Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > David Diaz wrote: > > Bdale Garbee wrote: > > > David Diaz wrote: > > > > I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it > > > > should abide the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the > > > > package's users. > > > > > > I understand your point. I guess I just still hold out hope that > > > the FSF may one day again publish documentation under a license > > > that's compliant with the DFSG... > > > > The facts are that a "Virtual RMS" is a RMS not a DFSG. Please, rename > > the package. Do not confuse the users of your package. > > I don't think the users of VRMS are particularly confused.
I think the users of VRMS are disappointed by the mismatch between the package name and what it does: monnier AT iro.umontreal.ca wrote: > I find it funny that Debian's "vrms" lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg Note, 'RMS' is listing some of its own software as non free. > Do you have suggestions for a better name? Well, I am not sure: dfsg-tools ? dfsg-checker ? check-dfsg ? ... or any other word which fits with what the package does. As Debian user for more than seven year, very best regards and thanks for your work, Davi -- www.gnuherds.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
