Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
>
> > I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between
> > non-free software and GFDLed documentation.
>
> You're asking about a distinction between non-free software and
> non-free software.
No.
> ("non-free" := everything, except it is "free"; "free" := meets the
> DFSG
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a country DFSG compliant?
I'm sorry but being free is meaningless. You're always 'free to do
something' (when you say I'm free, you basically implicitely express
what we consider now basic freedom (freedom of speech etc)).
There are freedom that are not given (freedom to kill, to hurt) for
obvious reasons.
When you think about freedom, you have to list what freedom are
required in order to be able to live, work and make a better society.
I think that the following article explains well why not everybody
agree that texts and softwares require the exact same freedom:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> Well, do you think it would be adaequate to put e.g. qmail into
> main?
Not at all.
I share the views expressed in the link I gave at the beginning of
this mail. It clearly explains which freedoms seems most important for
a software to me, requirement not met at all.
> What software would be acceptable for you to put into main?
Any and only software DFSG-compliant
> Can you draw a sharp line, so that we are able to discuss about
> this?
Basically, the freedoms I think important for a software are expressed
at gnu.org of at debian.org.
The freedoms I think important for documentation are expressed at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
But only GNU speaks of documentation.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: