Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment@gmx.net> said:
> On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be
> thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any other
> package in main. This is a quality that many packages in non-free do
> not share with them. As I don't have non-free in my
> apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs to the
> 'non-free' section would practically mean the same thing as moving
> them to the trash dump. I guess this step would be far too radical.
> * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
> availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
> distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.
Why are we special casing invariant sections? There are
packages in main that are freely distributable in any medium, by
anybody, and can be modified, but not for commercial distribution --
arguably, these are as free as anything else, since you can't even
ask for money for them. Yet they are non-free (angband is one such
package, if you are looking for examples).
It seems to me that we have a well established tradition of
deeming so-called freely-distributable-but-not-dfsg-free packages,
and relegating them to non-free, and people like me who like tp play
rogue-like games but prefer free software have to add non-free to our
sources lists for ever.
I am not finding this line of argument compelling.
manoj
--
Many books require no thought from those who read them, for a very
simple reason--they made no such demand upon those who wrote them.
Those works, therefore, are the most valuable that set our thinking
faculties in the fullest operation. -- Colton
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: