Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG
> allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed
> documentation with Invariant section.
> The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in
> some GFDLed documentation is more harmful to Debian than removing
> these GNU manuals?
Leaving them in main weakens our principles and opens the door to abuse.
Moving the manuals to non-free doesn't mean they are no longer
available. I personally don't care very much if the Emacs and Emacs
Lisp manuals don't get rewritten as free software. I'll get them from
non-free and at least it's being honest about the freeness of the
content. Get over out, it's not a huge deal.
I'd rather we work with the FSF in getting the GFDL free is used without
Invariant Sections or covers. That way at least some manuals can go
into main, just not most that are published by the FSF.