Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free.
That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most
practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the
necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of
Debian to consider, I think.
If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can
easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in
its entirety. The choice is yours, really.
That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001.
Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's
inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by
default anymore. The moralistic tone of the installation is also
problematic for me, since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is
done exclusively with free software (practically the BIOS is the only
non-free software I have to use anymore). This an important
distinction for the mathematical and scientific work that I do
(proprietary software is unscientific, etc).
"Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really
think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free
should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm very
loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of the
GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed.
- Jordi G. H.
Reply to: