Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
From: Sven Joachim <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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)