[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:37:25PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > In reality, Debian used to allow "non-free non-programs" in Debian -- but it 
> > did so while issuing a Social Contract which said that Debian didn't allow 
> > them in.  That was untruthful on the part of Debian.
> Debian did so before appropriate consideration was given to the issue.

That's not true. I referred to the first case (I'm aware of) where
non-free docs were brought up, which was almost a decade ago now. And
certainly I'd given the issue "appropriate consideration" and come to
a conclusion I was satisfied didn't conflict with the social contract;
obviously that conclusion differed from Nathaniel's.

> There's no such case here: nobody
> (else) seems to consider license texts a real problem.

I consider violating the social contract by distributing non-free license
texts a real problem; I just think violating it by ignoring the non-free
docs we're distributing a bigger problem -- and there are a number of such
docs, whether we consider the GFDL free or not. As is probably obvious,
I think not having made a decision on the freeness of the GFDL is a
bigger problem than the random other non-free docs we're also ignoring.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: