On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:36:07AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such > as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as "[non-free]", > but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because, > although they are not entirely free, they are at least freely > redistributable by everyone, which is better than nothing. This has come up before. The non-free repository seems a good enough place for them to me. I don't think we need a "Debian Non-Free Software Guidelines", which is essentially what you are proposing. I do agree that there are bad and worse ways to fail the DFSG. However, Debian's Social Contract obliges us to focus our energies only, or at least primarily, on Free Software, and we define define Free Software by means of the DFSG. In my opinion, "Non-Abhorrent Non-Free Software" is a cause best undertaken by a project other than Debian. -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk email@example.com | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Description: PGP signature