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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature