On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:25:02 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:53:14 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> You did not answer my question. What freedom of the user is
>>>>> protected by removing GFDLed documentation from Emacs?
>>>>
>>>> Similar to the freedoms protected by not providing propreitary
>>>> code on the GNU system.
>>
>>> There is no freedom protected by that. Proprietary code is not in
>>> the GNU system so that people using the GNU system are not kept
>>> from helping their neighbors and themselves with the source code.
>>> Not being allowed to modify or throw out the GNU Manifesto from a
>>> 500+-page document is not keeping them from using and modifying
>>> the source.
>>
>> I am prevented from making a small version of the manual to go
>> along with the emacs prc I hav made for my palm device; since
>> memory all limited.
> Not at all. You are prevented from _distributing_ such a manual,
> and I have not ever seen such a project. It would probably be easy
> enough to get permission from the FSF for such a version without the
> GNU manifesto if you could show its usefulness.
What is the point of making a neat new refcard if I can't
share it with my friends? It is amusing that someone with a @gnu.org
address is arguing that it is OK if I can't share my work :)
>> I do not have the freedom to make a small little cheat cheet ased
>> on the manual, without adding stuff the removes the space available
>> for my MP3's.
> Your MP3s. Now that's funny. Both because you use patented file
> formats without thinking twice, and because the space that the
> invariant sections of the GNU Emacs manual take up is _minuscule_
> compared to even a single MP3.
>> Just because this is a freedom you do not care about does not mean
>> it is a freedom that Debian does not care about.
> But Debian does not _provide_ freedoms. It just takes them away.
> Throwing out the Emacs manual does not give the user any freedom.
Debian throws out all kinds of non-free software. You might
argue that sticking to just free software is a bad thing, which you
seem to be doing, since your argument is that users like the non-free
stuff. Again, amusing to see a @gnu.org address rail against s
project sticking to its guns about freedom.
Is freedom only worth it if it is not inconvenient?
>> You have decided that is not a freedom you care about. I differ.
> But you don't care enough for that freedom to actually write a one
> or two page manual. And you don't provide the user with any
> freedom, but rather take away possibilities from him by refusing to
> let him use the Emacs manual under the GFDL.
We'll get around to replacing all kinds of non-free software
with free replacements, by and by, including non-free
documentation. This is a process that takes time, and being
volunteers, we do not have a time line. Which is why we package the
non-free documentation, and make it available.
>>>> then they must be removed from the distribution, that people rely
>>>> on to provide them with entirely free software.
>>
>>> So no freedom of the user gets protected in the process, merely
>>> his convenience.
>>
>> Semantics. I need to be free to move the doc to my phone.
> But you don't gain that freedom by removing a manual. You can only
> provide that freedom by _writing_ a manual, not by removing it.
We'll get around to it. I mean, how long has it taken the GNU
project not to provide a viable kernel?
>>> It shows that the talk of "protection" is nonsense.
>>
>> You lack of imagination is your problem.
> I prefer working with real documentation instead of imaginary
> documentation that somebody imagines to be freer because it does not
> contain the GNU manifesto as an indelible part, nor anything else.
Real, non-free documentation does exist =-- where it belongs,
in the non-fre archive. Free documentation may take a while.
> The FSF, not being satisfied with the available situation, rewrote
> software and documentation according to their ideas of freedom.
I know. They also rewrote the kernel to ... oops.
> If they really bothered about the freedoms of their users, they'd
> work on projects intended to _provide_ those freedoms.
We are. But we do things right, so it takes us a bit to get
done.
manoj
--
Hear about the Californian terrorist that tried to blow up a bus?
Burned his lips on the exhaust pipe.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
