Jérôme Marant wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, >>>these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some >>>overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs >>>to be done, >> >>We've done that. > > > You don't have any kind of authority, as far as I know.
I didn't say I did. I quoted "like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done," and noted that debian-legal had in fact said that. A clear majority at any rate. That's all. >>>there's a successful General Resolution passed on a >>>relevant topic, >> >>That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, >>I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. I notice your lack of comment on this. >>>or they're removed from the upstream... >> >>Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P >> >>Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. >>They can be placed in a package in "non-free" if you wish, as they appear to >>have licenses which make them distributable. >> >>It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a >>releaseable version of emacs in etch. > > > It is already releasable, thanks. Sorry, it's not. Please note that it has an RC bug filed against it. You do know what "RC" means, right? >>Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with >>respect to these works. >> >>Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has >>misinterpreted the meaning of the "integrity of the work" provisions in > > > We do pay attention to Michael. We even agree with him. Sad. 'Cause he's propounding bad legal advice. >>Jerome Marant's claim that the articles are "logically non modifiable without >>the consent of their author" is wrong, and is apparently due to the same >>point of confusion which also comes up when we discuss making standards >>documents "modifiable": you can't modify the original, but you should be >>allowed to create a derivative work, a modified copy. Consider the >>Declaration of Independence and these famous "modified versions": the >>Declaration of Sentiments, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The >>"modifications" did not change the original Declaration of Independence. >>"Modified versions" of these essays and speeches would likewise not change >>RMS's words, and would not pretend to be RMS's words. They would be >>different essays which used some of RMS's rhetoric and style. > > > I stand that removing those documents will not make Emacs more free > than it is nowdays. Well, you can "stand by" whatever you want, but not having any arguments to back it up makes it rather unconvincing. > You are an extremist, a fundamentalist, with no bits of common sense > at all. OK, that's both an ad hominem attack, and was given with no evidence. > You aren't helping anyone, not even the Debian Project. OK, that's partly an ad hominem attack, but worse, it is provably false. I am not the only one who gains direct benefit from having a clear, obvious division -- "main" exclusive of license texts -- between material satisfying the DFSG and that which doesn't. > So just please go away and find yourself another sandbox.
