Package: vrms Version: 1.14 Followup-For: Bug #537941 On a similar note, suggesting that RMS would be delighted by a system with no non-DFSG packages is false, and would best be removed until such time as you can implement --fsf-worldview or similar. Two good reasons:
1. RMS would be unhappy that non-DFSG-free packages because of GFDL-with-invariant-sections are reported as non-free. 2. RMS would be unhappy that a Debian system with only DFSG-packages was reported as free, because he knows about the grandfathered exceptions that still exist in the kernel. This may sound like tiny things. IANADD, but I have been using it and Ubuntu heavily for 6 years now, and value it; on the other hand, I am, since two years ago, a GNU maintainer. I often see animosity between the two camps, which to me is ridiculous, and I try to promote harmony. After a recent discussion on an internal GNU list that included some remarks about Debian being non-free, I want to mention vrms as a practical way in which Debian tries to give users the tools to monitor their use of non-free software. I fear however that in its current state it might be seen by GNU maintainers as another example of Debian twisting the meaning of "free". (I would reiterate that this is not a view I share.) A little more sensitivity in the wording could possibly make vrms a valuable point of contact between the two projects: for example, there might be GNU maintainers willing to implement some of the more complex functionality for vrms that has been suggested in other bugs, to make it a more useful and discerning tool. -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.4 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
