Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > +++ David Kastrup [27/10/06 10:22 +0200]: >>You mean, making an example of Emacs users is ok because you think the >>experienced ones might be able to work around the attack? >> >>Last time I looked, the Debian policies were supposed to be good for >>its users, not a weapon against them. > > The motivation here is not to make an example of emacs users. The > documentation is non-free and must be removed. Debian policies are > in fact supposed to be good for its users, but Debian puts > protecting the user's freedom above the user's convenience.
What freedom of the user is protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
