On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > 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 rather than call a non-free package "non-free", we should call it "free", since being free is better than being non-free? What kind of drugs have you been taking? > 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. This is precisely the scenario we are currently discussing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpUW3OTEGr0y.pgp
Description: PGP signature