Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
> # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package:
> glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: "Brian M. Carlson"
> <email@example.com>; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid,
> woody; 1 year and 99 days old.
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
This is why I think it is unfortunate, but too late, that the section was
called 'non-free' and not 'read-the-licence'.
Once you have read the DFSG you, as a user, or distributor, of Debian packages
know what you can do with packages in main or contrib. A package being in
non-free simply means that you have to read the licence, and this is exactly
what the authors of GFDL documents want you to do. They chose that particular
licence because they want the reader to be aware that there are particularly
privileged sections of the documentation - thus drawing the readers attention
The problem is that there are people who think that the section should be
called 'evil' and that when a package is moved to non-free it is a judgement
of its moral quality - but it is more of an indicator that it requires special
treatment - and this is requested by the author - not imposed by Debian.
Have you read the side of a RedHat boxed set ? I dont have one handy but it
says words to the effect of 'The software in this box is written by lots of
different people and is licenced under lots of different licences - to find
out more read the individual licences' - in other words it is all in
To quit using Debian because Debian tries harder than any other distribution
to be clear about licencing would be counter productive.