Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 08:23, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
Please give one reason for allowing this other than "I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian". Any one reason.
FDL is free enough.
Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions to
FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which forbids
Is it? Are you sure? Or do you plan to distribute encrypted Debian CD's? ;)
to pick parts of a document without keeping large parts of it can *ever*
be considered free?
>
Is that what you call "free enough"? Is the Microsoft shared source
licensing "free enough" for you? Where do you set the limit?
It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and
cons for the majority of people on the long terms.
FDL is free enough for Debian. FDL is free.
I still wonder why people want to put stuff and stuff in main,
regardless of the consequences. The main section is for FREE SOFTWARE,
do you understand what it means? Not half-free software, not "free
enough" software. Free software.
</rant>
I still wonder why people with the same ardour and consistency do not
speak about distribution of software in the non-free section? Why Debian
distributes non-free?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Reply to: