Bug#221807: [debian-vrms] Bug#221807: please take this into consideration
quote who=David Diaz date=Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:56:57AM +0200 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. Do you have suggestions for a better name? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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
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
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:24 +0200, Davi Leal wrote: It is 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 Debian want to keep the GFDL is not free principle, Debian should either rename vrms, or fix it to abide by Richard's own principles. Or, perhaps, offer a command line switch for choosing which of two rule sets definining freedom to apply? Bdale -- 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]
Bug#221807: [debian-vrms] Bug#221807: please take this into consideration
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 19:38 +0200, 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... Note the comment in the vrms description package: ;-) Actually, I wrote that. Way back when, I'm the one who dreamed up the package, came up with the name, and wrote the man page. The motivation was a conversation a guy who used to work for me (Bill Geddes) was having with RMS about Debian non-free. Bill wrote the original Perl implementation of vrms. None of that is particularly important, except to assure you that 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? Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
