Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
* Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> [040408 05:17]:
> as for RFCs and other documentation, the jury is still out on whether they can
> be included in main. no final decision has been made. you shouldn't pre-empt
> that decision by declaring them to be an attempt to sneak non-free stuff in
> main.
Could you please try to avoid pre-empting? As the decision you talk about
is about non-free stuff in main, talking as if it might be free by lurking
about "inclusion in main" is in my eyes far more objectable than presume bad
intentions.
> for years (since the start of Debian), they HAVE been considered free
> enough to go in main. it's only the loony exteremists who have been trying to
> kick out GNU documentation in the last few years to make a stupid point (and,
> presumably, to prove that they are Holier Than Stallman).
I think such a statement speaks enough for itself that contradicting is
not needed... ;->
> > Um, I have nothing against having "non-free", I'm against having non-free
> > stuff in "main". Hello?!? Not the same thing.
>
> they're the same old lies, though, and we've heard them over and over again.
Saying "lies" is not very nice, isn't it? I don't know what the other
people involved did, but I voted for keeping non-free. And one of my main
reasons is that I want main to be free of non-free.
MfG,
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: