Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.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?
>
> Of course!
> 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.
It should. non-free is not part of Debian, like the official logo.
> 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.
Ok. That's a point of view I can understand.
--
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: