On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:16:15PM -0700, David Schleef wrote: >On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> >> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software". >> | If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software", >> | then we may be violation of our guiding principles. >> >> The anarchism package is an excellent example of a package in Debian >> main that, although DFSG-free, is neither software nor software >> documentation. > > It's also a package that should be removed instead of being a > justification for non-social-contract-conforming packages. >
How about linuxgazette? Or any of the /usr/local/doc/ non-software based packages? I think it would be a mistake to remove such items from main stream distribution. Prehaps a section apart from main/non-free/non-US could be useful, as a document such as those above don't really fit into those categories, if you take them to mean "free software"/"restrictive licence software"/"not for US software", which thought of by quite a few users. Just my 0.02UKP. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li 8DEC67C5
