Re: documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-31 09:45:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it
reject?
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a "social
contract"
cannot be apolitical!
Yes, but your copy is under a free software licence. We are not
rejecting the GNU Manifesto because of a political judgement, such as
that you advocated to rule out racist texts etc, but because it is not
under a free software licence. I'd be quite happy to distribute the
GNU Manifesto, were it free software.
[...]
Making a political statement within the software does exactly the
same. Why do you believe that one should be protected and the other
shouldn't?
Because a software is not a documentation. [...]
Again, that is backwards. Documentation that can be in Debian is
software, according to the common definition. Please stop reversing
it in order to stand the straw man back up.
If you're not interested in any secondary section of a manual, you can
skip them at no cost.
Please explain how it has no cost to Debian's sponsors to have this
uneditable non-documentation material bloating the manuals.
Side note: I never said that 'political statement within the
documentation should be protected' but I said that I understand and
think acceptable and harmless why some people want to protect some
political statement in a documentation. This is pretty different.
I guess that I can understand it, too, but I cannot understand why
some people seem to think that it excuses them from meeting Debian's
normal requirements for free software.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Reply to: