Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Pretty large inconveniences for it to be called 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?
Don't knock it! We might need it soon to hold all the GFDL manuals.
Seriously, I think the fact that we have non-free for `mot quite free'
stuff helps keep main completely free.
Why do you care if you have to download license-inconvenienced manuals
from non-free? I don't. I'll download them anyway if I need them.
But it'll be a reminder every time that the license isn't as free as
stuff in main.