Re: [rant] Re: Consequences of moving Emacs Manuals to non-free
Hubert Chan <email@example.com> writes:
> Debian has to pick a definition of free/non-free for itself. It
> cannot try to cater to everyone's different definition of free.
Sure, but then they should be honest about it, and not keep software
with "non-free" documentation in the main section: that's just
encouraging people distributing crippleware with non-free
documentation. And they'll point to Debian's treatment of GNU/GFDL as
As the prescribed documentation license for all GNU projects according
to the GNU maintainer guidelines is the GFDL, it is clear that most
GNU software should get moved to non-free, and probably all of it by
Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead
try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD
utilities all around.
But the current course is pure duplicity.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum