Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
> > the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
> > non-free software or software which is dependent on non-free software.
> And, by "non-free", you mean stuff like GFDL licensed documentation?
Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to
distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being "software"
but instead a unique concept - that of "documentation" <gasp; duck/>??
That for me would be a next logical step after dropping non-free.