Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another one would be from GNU maintainers to release two versions of > their manuals: > - the complete GFDLed one > - a GPLed one where the invariant section are removed
If such a version exists. > But I see many reasons against this solution. If this kind of solution > can be accepted, it will probably take some time. > > > The GNU project is free to set up it's own apt-get repository to distribute > > items which it feels should be in the Debian archive but which we can't > > distribute. You'll have to work out some way to publicise it to users, > > since, as you have to understand, we can't have any part in recommending > > non-free software to our users[1]. > > I agree with your first phrase. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the > last one: Debian already recommends non-free software to users by > provide apt-get links to these softwares, even if in theory non-free > is not part of Debian. Yes, but not if we went ahead with the non-free purge, which is what he meant, surely. > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit > strange to study line by line a license text to find reasons of > DFSG-non compliance and suddenly, because of one potential problem > (you're not forced to use invariant options!), concluding that this > license is completely non-free, isn't it? Why not? It's what we do with all licenses. I see that in the rest of the long thread, you took the worst examples of non-free content (flash) to compare it with a GDFL'ed document. That's an interesting strategy. But you could also compare it with other packages in non-free that are free except that they require registration for non-commercial use (e.g. scilab). Suddenly the comparison isn't so convincing. Peter
