[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which devs are the ones responsible here: the Debian devs who put it
there, or the upstream ones that presumably put non-free constraints on
the documentatin license? Or is it all a big misunderstanding?
-- hendrik
Honestly, I think both sides are suffering from a bad case of
pig-headedness. The fact is that both Debian and FSF have as a goal the
provision of freely modifiable documentation to accompany free software.
And both the DFSG and the GFDL provide this capability.
Clearly, the GFDL is not completely free. That's unfortunate, and it
would be better if GNU could find another way to spread their message.
On the other hand, the use of invariant sections does not in any
significant way limit the usefulness of the documentation. You can still
modify GPL code and you can still document those changes with GFDL
documents. If we were distributing those docs in paper-copy then maybe
the forced inclusion of the GNU manifesto would represent a real
impediment to further distribution, but when it just means a few more
1's and 0's sent down the line it is a trivial requirement to meet.
And, has been mentioned above, the impact on new Debian users of putting
basic documentation in the non-free repository is something to consider
for long term advocacy. Either they hunt down the documentation
themselves, which is a hassle, or they enable the non-free repositories
(in for a penny, in for a pound...), or they just go to another distro
entirely. How does forcing users to sneak around the DFSG serve the
purpose of the DFSG?
my two cents,
Tyle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: emacs without documentation nonsense Tyler
-
