Memnon Anon <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick Dokos <[email protected]> writes: > > > But I saw a message implying that Debian does not consider emacs > > documentation free (!?!?), so the info files may be in > > emacs23-common-non-dfsg in this case. > > The FSF isn't the only one caring about "Freedom". > Where more than one entity exists, they are bound to disagree sometimes :). > > > ,----[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFSG#GFDL ] > | Much documentation written by the GNU Project, the Linux Documentation > | Project and others licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License > | contain invariant sections, which do not comply with the DFSG. This > | assertion is the end result of a long discussion and the General > | Resolution 2006-001.[11] > | > | Due to the GFDL invariant sections, content under this license must be > | separately contained in an additional "non-free" repository which is not > | officially considered part of Debian. > `---- >
Yup - as I indicated, I found it somewhat surprising, so I found and read the resolution. I think it's all pretty small nits, but thank goodness IANAL (haven't even played one on TV): the havoc that I could wreak would be unimaginable... Nick
