On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual. You modify > > the software in a manner which suits you... but you're not allowed to > > modify the manual to reflect this change; the license of the manual > > requires that it only document the unmodified version, so any modified > > versions are at an immediate disadvantage. > > And you think this is acceptable? Why? > It's more acceptable to me than the alternative: to move a good portion > of documentation to non-free where it will not be distributed by > vendors, will not be considered "part of Debian" and thus will be under > threat of removal, and will be considered a "lower class" package. So in order to avoid damaging the self-esteem of non-free documentation packages, we should insist that they not be stigmatized with the "non-free" label and accept them into the "main"stream without discussing their freedom disabilities, lest they be treated as second class packages? Well, how can I argue with such impeccable logic? It is dishonest to bend the guidelines to conform to your personal definition of what Debian should be. We have a Social Contract and a fixed set of Guidelines that define what Debian is. If you don't like what they say, get them amended; but until that happens, every DD (or at least, everyone who's gone through the NM process) is bound by an obligation to uphold the Social Contract *as written*. > Fortunately, the situation you describe is unlikely to occur because few > people are perverse enough to make their software free but their > documentation very non-free. Right, just the few elite like the FSF. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpl2HJIFrG7Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature