Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
> > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > modified. These are not programs; are they software?
> The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian.
But some of them are produced by Debian.
Which means basically "well, we need to make these logos non-free, we
consider making these logos enough ethical, but we do not distribute
them in main because of the DFSG". It completely defeats the purpose
of the DFSG: the goal of the DFSG is to rule Debian, in order to build
a complete Free OS, by stating what is acceptable in a Free OS and
what is not, isn't it?
When you're forced to disregard the DFSG when working for Debian
(because, please, making an official logo is FOR Debian) and that do
not pose to you ethical problem, it means that the DFSG is too
ambiguous and do not serve its purpose by drawing the line at the
wrong place (being a pain instead of insuring the important freedoms).
Not a native english speaker: