On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:29:31AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: -snip- > > The assumption here is that our users are not best served by free > > software. I question why anybody who holds that opinion would have > > anything to do with Debian, or free software in general. I think that > > our users are best served by having free software, and releasing with > > anything less is doing them a major disservice, especially if we foist > > non-free software on them for two or three years until the next > > release. > > You speak as if it were a choice between releasing free software/data > versus non-free alternatives. Of course the real problem is that in > many cases there simply are no current alternatives at all (e.g., the > significant amounts of GFDL documentation). This does rather muddy > things up -- documentation for instance is an important component of > a system for users who don't know it all already (or who haven't been > using GNU/Linux for so long that they know all the magic tricks to try > to work it out for themselves). RMS' non-free licensed docs can go into non-free like they belong. Or he can hurry up and announce the changes to the GFDL that were supposed to be announced last month before debconf. Too bad Debian didn't get rid of non-free in the previous GR or we could mention to RMS we are too free to even distribute his non-free stuff. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature