Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being > > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software > > advocacy. > > If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. > If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the > pointless grandstanding.
Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. > Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, > "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also > distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on > freedom. Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free to do what I want with my source? Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as acceptable. > > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) > > > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be > > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you > > wrote it, and so on. > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. > > We shall not distribute it. This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. -- Jérôme Marant
