Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba+nospam@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030922 15:09]:
> > The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program
> > and their documentation.
>
> So, you finally admited that software includes also digital photos of
> your girlfriend. Wow.
You apparently missed a part of the discussion. I understood that you
were using a very large definition of software since a while now.
> Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social
> Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100%
> free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software.
I think this question too simplistic. The current situation is the
fact that we have manuals with some part that will never be
DFSG-compliant. It was important to ask to ourselves if, in this case,
removing these manuals is more harmful than letting these manuals.
Now there is an answer, which not only about the law (Is it DFSG
compatible? - it is not) but also social (Is it better to keep these
manuals despite their non-DSFG part? - the answer is no also).
If it makes no difference for you, it does for me - and I'm maybe not
the only one.
--
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: