"Karl E. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "An alternative"? Re-writing the Emacs manual (IIRC this was the > sticking point early on in this thread) is not an easy task. At the > very least I would expect this to take some time. In the mean time, the > maintainer(s) still had to follow the DFSG and whatnot, so I cannot see > what choice they had...
An alternative action would have been to move bash-doc, emacs and other packages that are going to be altered by this decision to non-free rather than removing the documentation and leaving us with none. That seems like a perfectly reasonable course of action given the circumstances. I just can't understand why people think it's reasonable to just take the documentation away. It's dogmatic in the extreeme. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
