Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free

[Xavier Maillard <zedek@gnu.org>]

   From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>

   Jérôme Marant wrote:
   >>Yeah, after all, the social contract merely states:
   >>
   >>      We will never make the system require the use
   >>      of a non-free component.
   >>
   >>Now I realize what that means: "The system" does not require the
   >>non-free documentation, although one could argue that its users and
   >>developers probably will require it.  Quite sophisticated.
   > 
   > 
   > Perhaps grabbing documentation from non-free will be a minor inconvenience
   > for many users. We shall see.

   I think there's more to it than that.  A lot of information crucial to Debian's
   development (such as the glibc documentation) will be moved to non-free, and I
   guess that almost every Debian developer will need to install one or the other
   non-free documentation package.  Thus, the claim "Debian is 100% free, because
   we have removed the offending GFDL documentation" is dishonest, in my opinion.

The sentence "Debian is 100% free" is a lie in the sense that Debian
developpers maintain contrib and non-free repositories.

I do not want non-free to hit my sources.lst but in the other hand, I will
have to add it in order to read GFDL'ed documentations.

What a mess !!

UTUTO is ready to be installed on my main machines (UTUTO is *really* 100% free)

Xavier