Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free

[Jérôme Marant <jmarant@free.fr>]

Xavier Maillard <zedek@gnu.org> writes:

>    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.

Debian = main, as it has always been.  End of story.

> 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)

RMS has stopped endorsing Debian a long time ago.  I'm surprised you haven't
dropped it earlier.

-- 
Jérôme Marant