Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
[ Reply-to set to debian-project, debian-devel is not the place for such a
discussion if people really want to have it ]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com>:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > > > An obsession with "freedom" that insists on removing RFCs from source
> > > > tarballs, is absurd. Why not change the contract.
> > >
> > > You're not talking seriously, are you?
> > Why not? Is it difficult to acknowledge that not all people think the
> > same? Have you noticed that none of the GR end up with 100% on one side
> > and 0% on the other?
> So, what exact change in the social contract are you proposing? I'm a
> bit lost about this, then.
I'm not proposing anything... I said that IMO it's not worth discussing
it. I just wanted you to acknowledge that some people can legitimately have
other opinions and that your question was somewhat ignoring that fact.
Now, just for reference, the (lively) discussion on IRC didn't manage to
find any good wording for defining the scope of what's acceptable and not.
I was trying to define a subset of the DFSG that had to apply to content
that was distributed in the source package and that was not distributed as
part of the binary packages ... provided that those limitations were
documented in debian/copyright.
The goal was to avoid the tarball repacking that we're doing to strip off
RFC and GFDL manuals with invariant sections. That's all.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :