On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing > non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case! > Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it should continue is another question. I haven't seen many people offering a principled defense of the practice. I would be very surprised if any DFSG-free text were removed from a Debian package. > To my knowledge Debian has not only never removed a snippet from the > source we distribute, but includes such snippets in the binaries, > typically in ...-doc.deb. One example of this is GNU Emacs, which > includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right > now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6 > (which is of questionable taste), Please see the discussion Bug #154043. sex.6 has no copyright statement, and so can reasonably be supposed to be covered under the copyright of the whole package. > GNU, CENSORSHIP (which is dated into > such irrelevance that its inclusion is arguably embarrassing), > LINUX-GNU (whose first sentence misleadingly reads "The GNU project > started 12 years ago"), ... Already filed as bug #207932, marked as sarge-ignore (per the release manager's stated policy). If you want to offer a principled reason why this is not a bug, I'm eager to be convinced (although IANADD, so you don't need to convince me). > COOKIES (whose relevance, copyright status, > and humor value is unclear), Same situation as sex.6. Peace, Dylan