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

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

> 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.

	Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: