Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation. > > > It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information, > > > but even if they don't we'd rather not have them at all. Sometimes > > > they're let in anyway, but only because there are specific reasons > > > that count more than our dislike for invariance. "There's no > > > acceptable, more free, documentation available" is usually a > > > necessary but not sufficient part of such specific reasons. > > You can use the same argument to argue that some non-free software > should go into main. Prior to Mozilla and Konqueror, there was no > acceptable, more free web browser than Netscape available. We still > didn't put it in main. This would also mean that if better, more free > documentation did come out, then the old documentation would suddenly > become unfree.
The absence of a free alternative is a necessary, but not sufficient reason. In the case of software, we have decided that it is certainly not sufficient. > I've already voted for this. I think that Invariant text is an > abomination. It is unfortunate that the GNU manuals may be booted > into non-free, but that is what happens when you forcefully interject > political commentary into technical documentation. What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of the manual with no such license restriction, but which still included the political commentary, under the understanding that Debian would distribute the normal version? Thomas
