Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
> Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> synonymous.
In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright.
That's one way to interpret it, but I don't think it is the best way.
The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and
contains nothing else. But there surely was never an intention to
develop a system that didn't have manuals and essays and licenses in
it. I think that this was an error of thinking at the time.
Why should we listen to your arguments to convince us if you will not
listen to our arguments trying to convince you?
I started discussing this issue here because I thought that Debian
developers were still making up their minds on the issue. I am not
presenting a demand, just a proposal. I don't want to nag, and if
Debian developers are not interested in what I have to say, I will let
the issue drop.
By contrast, you are trying to change a policy that was decided almost
two decades ago, so I would need to find your reasons rather
convincing. But they are based on a completely different view of the
issue, so I don't find them convincing. Also, you often present your
arguments as a demand rather than a proposal. It comes across as a
pressure campaign--just the opposite of the way I am approaching
Debian. That doesn't make me inclined to listen.
I'm inclined to let the issue drop pretty soon, but I think the
current discussion about the DFSG is getting to the heart of the
matter, so I think I will continue until this point is fully explored
and then let it drop.
Reply to: