Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
Xavier Maillard <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
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.