Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I asked several times (in person, during debconf) the ftp-masters to
> edit the override, but the last time I checked, they haven't yet.  I
> will try to ping them again on IRC, or ... perhaps dato can do that now?
> (I guess that's why you are Cc-ing him?)

dato said he'd ping me on the thread; and maybe he did, but not so that
I actually paid attention. ICMP is an unreliable transport that may
require resends :)

So what needs to happen? nvi dropped to optional, vim-tiny raised to
important? Anything else?

> BTW, the recent issue of the non-free-ness of the vim manual is scaring
> us a bit these days (see #384019), but I'm not yet in the position of
> stating whether the issue is placed in a scale ranging from a trivial
> issue to an unsolvable one (we are waiting for Bram's answers on the
> topic).

FWIW, I'm not remotely convinced by the reasoning in the -legal post
linked from that bug number. (3) is certainly wrong -- we consider the
requirement to include the original source free, how can referencing
it be non-free? The "dissident test" is controversial at best, and the
requirements on the front page text don't seem overly onerous.

While that -legal thread mentions relicensing www.debian.org, that
doesn't appear to have happened either.

I'd suggest you talk to Joerg Jaspert who does most of the NEW
processing atm to get another opinion, but fwiw, my take is that the
OPL's imperfect (and having docs under the same license as code is a
good thing generally), but DFSG-free. That's my take, not an official
position though :)

Cheers,
aj


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/attachments/20060823/c7ecfb9a/attachment.pgp