Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual >> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package >> > >> > You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence, >> > not the social contract. >> >> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me. > >Jérôme, that's RMS' choice to make. We don't have to pretend it's free.
Yes, it is. >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a >small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free. Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they >> are not on GNU side ... > >I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the FSF >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a non-free >license, but that they are promoting it as a free license. You are right if you considered such documentation as covered by DFSG. This is the point of the debate. >How hard will it be for you to fetch some docs from non-free? I don't >think it's a huge price to pay to be true to ourselves. Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that. You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals. This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals. Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the Emacs manual. -- Jérôme Marant
