On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote: > * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The > > > >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of > > > >understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected. > > > >Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be > > > >treated as such. > > > I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
> > So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape > > Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader? > Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to > everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain > support for the non-free removal resolution. I think our commitment to providing a distribution consisting exclusively of material whose license complies with the freedoms outlined in the DFSG is far more important than the question of whether we continue to distribute non-free alongside. If we are going to allow documentation into main that follows a different set of rules than the ones we use for software, the Social Contract must be amended to unambiguously reflect this point of view. Otherwise, how are redistributors and users supposed to know where the line is between stuff-that's-really-free and stuff-that's-not-free-but-included-anyway? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpnzJoJJI363.pgp
Description: PGP signature
