David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree >> with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be. > > Playing the devil's advocate here, let's pretend that "legally" it > doesn't. You still think we should include obviously non-Free > documentation in main? I mean, doesn't that go against the *spirit* of > Free Software, at the very least?
Sure. >> >> RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL. >> > >> > I don't care what RMS may or may not do. Why do *you*? It is >> > completely >> >> Because it was RMS's reply that was quoted in the first message of the >> thread, don't you recall? > > You mentioned a specific example; Emacs documentation. Thus, whatever > political goals RMS may have is irrelevant to the discussion, as is his > thoughts on the nature of non-Free stuff being "ethical". It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he? > *We* only care about whether it's Free or not. We don't what RMS may > have done in the past for Free Software, not in this _specific_ example. > We only care whether or not it's Free. ... DFSG-compliant. >> > irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the >> > licenses are Free, or not. It's that simple. >> >> And also if we have a hope to see the license being modified. > > Of course, we all do - and you're wanting to get it changed by ignoring > its non-Free nature? Be my guest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> No you don't care: you don't use Emacs. > > Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I > constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more > than it affects a seasoned user. I should never believe what people say on IRC. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
