Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are
> distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it
> be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG
> documentation', which would be distributed by GNU and 'not considered as
> part of Debian'?
That would be fine - until we pass the GR to get rid of non-free once and
for all (partially at RMS' behest, I will add). I don't see why, if we're
cleaning up our act in distributing items non-compliant with our social
contract, we'd keep one part and throw out another.
> It would allow users (something that Debian cares about) that do not
> want 'non-free software' at all but accept 'free-documentation as
> defined by the GNU project' to be able to use apt-get easily, easier
> than if 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' was mixed
> with 'non-free software'.
The GNU project is free to set up it's own apt-get repository to distribute
items which it feels should be in the Debian archive but which we can't
distribute. You'll have to work out some way to publicise it to users,
since, as you have to understand, we can't have any part in recommending
non-free software to our users[1].
- Matt
[1] Before the "software isn't documentation" crowd gets going, I'll tell
them to get stuffed. I haven't seen the rebuttal of any of the "why
documentation is software" arguments, so in my eyes you lost the war.
Reply to: