Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Peter S Galbraith <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> 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
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.
Not a native english speaker: