Re: Mass bug reports for packages with GFDL documentation?
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 06:26:53PM +0000, Adam Funk wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 November 2004 14:20, John Hasler wrote:
> > Adam writes:
> >> What is the problem with the GFDL?
> > It does not comply with the DFSG and it has been decided that
> > documentation
> > is software (please don't start a flamewar about this. I don't agree
> > with it either, but it is settled).
> I don't want a flamewar either.
I was peripherally aware of the dispute. I did not know it
went back as far as 2001.
It seems to have grown from a war of words to a war of actions.
> >> Are the Debian developers seriously proposing to get rid of all those
> >> packages in the long run?
> > They will be replaced with Free versions, moved to Non-Free, or
> > removed.
> > This will not affect Sarge.
> What about the practical implications? How can you have a GNU/Linux
> distribution without gcc, make and especially coreutils?
I could not support a distribution with gcc as non-free or removed.
Moving forward in pushing back the envelope of the corporate paradigm.