Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:15:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[🔎] 20050416015445.GF4831@stusta.de> you wrote:
> > > Is this wanted?
> > 
> > This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
> 
> Well, it's not that we don't want gcc's documentation to be moved to
> non-free; rather, we don't want gcc's documentation to *be* non-free.
> The moving to non-free is just a side-effect; Adrian seems to be
> saying that we should eliminate the side-effect and ignore the core
> problem.

What is the "core problem"?

Are the differences between the FSF and Debian regarding issues like 
invariant sections in Debian really the core problem?

Or are things like hardware with binary-only drivers and without 
specifications or software patents more important problems?

As I tried to express in the "system administrator" example in the email 
I sent a few minutes ago, I'm sure nearly everyone outside the inner 
circle of the free software world will consider the whole GFDL 
discussion as being absurd. In the Qt/GPL case Debian was at least able 
to argue that it would otherwise break laws which convinces many people. 

And if the FSF doesn't want to change the GFDL in a way that Debian 
wants I doubt moving GFDL'ed documentation to non-free will put much 
pressure on them.

> Glenn Maynard

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed