"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor >> documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically >> non modifiable without the consent of their author. >> >> Whether they are around or not is irrelevant to the freeness of Emacs. > > IMHO, Jérôme is right but for the wrong reasons. In many > jurisdictions (especially France, but other parts of US law besides > copyright have similar consequences), copyright license does not and > cannot grant authority to misattribute or violate the integrity of an > artistic or polemical work. These documents are not part of the "work > of authorship" that is the Emacs program and documentation. They may > be retained or removed; but they may not be arbitrarily modified. > > Personally, I would retain them as a courtesy to upstream; users are > no more and no less free to modify or remove them than Debian is. The > alternative -- to demand that all content other than license texts and > other legal indicia must be arbitrarily modifiable in order to be > DFSG-free -- is logically consistent but would require the removal of > all remotely "artistic" or "polemical" works in the Debian archive.
At last, someone with some bits of common sense here! Full Ack. -- Jérôme Marant