license

[Arthur]

Terry -

>You may not like how that developer's package works.  I personally agree
>with your opinion on the design issue (at least as far as I understand you
>-- I haven't seen the rebuttal, only your statement that you didn't
>understand it, which is hardly a strong case). But as I posted, you already
>have perfectly adequate remedies for it:

>* Use somebody else's package if there is one.

>* Make your own replacement (by patching or forking if possible).

Can you find me the case where overwriting the index to the Python
documentation without warning on a download of a 3rd party module is OK?

What case do I need to make, other than to state the facts.

OK, OK - I hereby put the license issue aside.

But I am also makling Free Software.  Not only am I making Free Software, I
am making it during my Free Time.

I am asking the distributor to do no more than bring his distribution into
reasonable compliance with normal practice, because I am otherwise
uncomfortable - trying myself to adhere to good practice - asking my users
to download that distribution.

Yes, I can replace, fork, patch, redistribute. port, recode whatever.

All of which is time consuming. And, in this case, should be totally
unnecessary.

Is the Free Software world possible, without some voluntary adherence to
standards?

Art