Bug#221807: [debian-vrms] Bug#221807: "please take this into consideration"
Bdale Garbee wrote: > David Diaz wrote: > > I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it should > > abide the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the package's users. > > I understand your point. I guess I just still hold out hope that the > FSF may one day again publish documentation under a license that's > compliant with the DFSG... The facts are that a "Virtual RMS" is a RMS not a DFSG. Please, rename the package. Do not confuse the users of your package. > > Note the comment in the vrms description package: > I'm completely aware that vrms has never really fulfilled the original > vision I/we had for it... > Do you care about this enough to want to help work on vrms? I am overloaded with this www.gnuherds.org Best regards, Davi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#221807: [debian-vrms] Bug#221807: "please take this into consideration"
Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > David Diaz wrote: > > Bdale Garbee wrote: > > > David Diaz wrote: > > > > I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it > > > > should abide the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the > > > > package's users. > > > > > > I understand your point. I guess I just still hold out hope that > > > the FSF may one day again publish documentation under a license > > > that's compliant with the DFSG... > > > > The facts are that a "Virtual RMS" is a RMS not a DFSG. Please, rename > > the package. Do not confuse the users of your package. > > I don't think the users of VRMS are particularly confused. I think the users of VRMS are disappointed by the mismatch between the package name and what it does: monnier AT iro.umontreal.ca wrote: > I find it funny that Debian's "vrms" lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg Note, 'RMS' is listing some of its own software as non free. > Do you have suggestions for a better name? Well, I am not sure: dfsg-tools ? dfsg-checker ? check-dfsg ? ... or any other word which fits with what the package does. As Debian user for more than seven year, very best regards and thanks for your work, Davi -- www.gnuherds.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#221807: [debian-vrms] Bug#221807: "please take this into consideration"
> > Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I find it funny that Debian's "vrms" lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg
> >> ("vrms" is the "Virtual RMS" which lists the non-free packages installed
> >> on your system). At least if they want to keep the "GFDL is not free"
> >> principle, they should either rename vrms, or fix it to abide by
> >> Richard's own principles.
Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Or, perhaps, offer a command line switch for choosing which of two rule
> sets definining freedom to apply?
I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it should abide
the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the package's users.
Another option could be rename the package to something like "check
installation freedom" and allow choosing the freedom 'mode'. However I like
have a 'virtual' RMS. Maybe the best option is to fix the vrms to abide the
RMS principles, and add other virtual-whatever-package if you want. Note the
comment in the vrms description package:
"Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text
from the public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of
each of the installed non-free packages might cause moral issues
for some in the Free Software community."
Bug report at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221807
Davi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
