On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> wrote: > > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation > > because some people do not like its license will help the distribution > > and/or the cause of free software. > I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing > and long and contain an "Exhibit A", because they are hard to read and > understand. But that does not make them *non-free*. What I have a > specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is > non-free, not that it is long, or confusing. You are using a strawman > example by distorting my position. No, you missed the point. The point is that it's not important what position you hold, but that whatever your position (or mine) is, it's not the criteria that developers should use to determine if they need to remove something from the distribution. > What will help the cause of free software is if we refuse to > compromise on freedom within the Debian distribution. That is, in my The DFSG has always been a compromise, see clause 4. It was needed to get TeX in debian, or most people in the free software community would have considered the project a joke, like it's quickly approaching to be. And every license is a compromise on the spectrum of different liberties which can be granted or not granted to different entities, it's not obvious at all that the specific set of compromises made by the GFDL are unacceptable. > opinion, the best thing for the users and for the distribution. And > furthermore, in my bugs, I am offering a possibility to move the > documentation to non-free. That may be removing it from the > distribution, but it will still exist and be apt-get'able. I understand you want to become a developer. Then you should know that non-free is not part of Debian. -- ciao, | Marco | [9263 gaOCy4gIOS2UM]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature