Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 15, Miles Bader wrote:
>> In practice I guess it's just going to mean that most people end up
>> putting non-free in their sources.list, weakening the effect of having a
>> separation between "free" and "non-free" in the first place, and more
>> users end up confused because lack of hard dependencies will mean the
>> doc packages don't get installed.
>
> It may get worse. The maintainer of the GNU make package has just kicked
> out the documentation for good, offering no substituton
> whatsoever. [...]
Why should a Debian maintainer feel compelled to package non-free
software?
> [...] See bug #358314 (and note that the make manual does not
> even contain unmodifiable sections).
I just downloaded make 3.80 from ftp.gnu.org, and you appear to
be wrong about that. Here is an excerpt from make.texi:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public License'', the Front-Cover
Texts being ``A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts being as in
(a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
``GNU Free Documentation License''.
Front-cover and back-cover texts are invariant.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
