From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scratch buffer annoyance Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:33:02 +0200 Message-ID: <85ps1ac12p.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <85sl6o3rj1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <873aykml2v.fsf@jurta.org> <87bqd744yp.fsf@jurta.org> <87tzqv1sui.fsf@jurta.org> <87ir7bnm97.fsf@jurta.org> <87absl7sdo.fsf@jurta.org> <87tzqrt8ts.fsf@jurta.org> <87wsvjadfq.fsf@jurta.org> <85veb3bdbx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87wsvj9ol5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1188154381 7699 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2007 18:53:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , rms@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 26 20:52:58 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IPNEE-0003qC-BV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:52:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPNED-0004au-Vj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IPNE9-0004ah-Ty for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:49 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IPNE8-0004aU-IC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPNE8-0004aR-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IPNE8-0000Yl-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:48 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IPNDv-0001np-Ik; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:52:35 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 161CE1C46118; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:33:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87wsvj9ol5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Sun\, 26 Aug 2007 08\:33\:26 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:77220 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > I should think it Debian's rather than our job to deal with the > > ensuing breakage. > > I didn't know that either Debian or Emacs paid their developers. > > Seriously, do whatever results in the least effort and acrimony in the > long run. There are at least four options: > > 1. Spend time fielding the FAQs and explaining to the users that > Debian is at fault in hopes that they will complain and get Debian to > do something; > > 2. Save the users' time and bitch at Debian directly; > > 3. Do nothing; and > > 4. Make it harder for Debian to screw up this way. > > My preference would be 4, in the form of GPLing the docs, but I > guess my self-interest is showing there! ;-) GPLing the docs would mean that people could, for example, "adapt" the GNU Manifesto to what they consider changing circumstances. Or omit it altogether in a print publication. Which is a concern not just in countries like China: "Open Source" has as one of its goals not to frighten people away by talking about freedom and similar things. I have just taken a look at the XEmacs manual. It retains the manifesto, but actually the license (the pre-GFDL-one) requires this section to stay unmodified. Would it be in there still if not required by the license? As a note aside, it is sort of amusing that the XEmacs documentation is classified as "free" by Debian in spite of indelible, inviolate sections, while Emacs documentation is "non-free" because of them. I guess the GFDL by any other name smells sweeter. Personally, I'd rather prefer at least a dual licensing of the manual under the GPL, to make it possible for third parties to exchange documentation between DOC strings and the manual. However, this would require then that they relicense the resulting manual under GPL only, since moving DOC strings from GPLed material into something licensed as GFDL would not be allowed. As long as the GFDL has different aims to serve as the GPL, I don't see that there is an easy way out. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum