* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote: > > > If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a > > guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the > > core distribution depends on non-free software, I completely agree with > > you. To the supporters of non-free removal, I get the impression that is > > more of a delineation between what the project morally endorses and what > > it only grudgingly supports as a service to users. > > > If you assume the former view, there is no reason to remove non-free as a > > whole, because the main/non-free split already guarantees that Debian > > proper is 100% DFSG-free. > > That does not follow. I have never heard anyone argue that guaranteeing > the freedom of Debian proper is the reason for removing non-free. There > are resources involved in maintaining the archive for non-free; its > presence on Debian servers lends credibility to the software there, > which, whether or not you believe there is a moral issue, may not be > desirable because the licensing is not consistent with Debian's primary > goals. The dropping-non-free issue is a complex one.
You're right, I'm sure I oversimplified the issue. I'm not really interested in debating non-free removal at this point, and that wasn't the intent of my original post. > In contrast, the question of including non-DFSG-free documentation in > main is fairly clear-cut: one interpretation unambiguously agrees with > the Social Contract as written, and one does not. The honest solution > is to eliminate the ambiguity, not to try to argue that the ambiguity is > unimportant. > > > If you assume the latter view, there is no reason to shun the > > non-modifiability of RFCs, because they are free enough for their > > purpose, just as license texts are. > > This is also a non-sequitur. If it's a question of moral endorsement, > how can you assume that people who are concerned about this issue agree > with your definition of what is or isn't moral? I haven't presumed to define what is or isn't moral. I was stating my impression that advocates of non-free removal see main (and therefore DFSG software) as being equivalent to "what the project endorses" and non-free as "what the project does not endorse." And I am arguing that there is no reason not to endorse RFCs just as we endorse license texts. That last sentence is a personal judgement that I would guess many Debian developers would find agreement with. -- Josh Haberman Debian GNU/Linux developer
