On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:21:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mer 14/05/2003 à 08:22, Branden Robinson a écrit : > > I disagree. I often pull my paper GNU manuals off the shelf rather than > > consult the on-line documentation. For most things I need to > > accomplish, say with GNU Awk, the old paper manual is sufficiently > > accurate and helpful.
> Then maybe it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. > > I wonder what would happen if we applied the same standard you propose > > to the *software* in the Debian archive... > When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often > a free fork which gets maintained. The point is, there are plenty of *other* out-of-date things in the archive (whether or not there are non-free versions) that no one is objecting to currently. Rolling back to older versions of the documentation would put our documentation on equal footing with our software. ;) > If that happens to some non-free documentation as well, that's fine, > but I don't think you will find many volunteers to do that. Certainly if you expect programmers to write all of the documentation, this is true. But did programmers write the non-free documentation, either? Are technical writers not sympathetic to the cause of freedom the way that programmers are? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpeVvn9sImll.pgp
Description: PGP signature
