D.Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am sure almost no one consider FSF's manuals unfree just because > DSFG thinks they are,
Well, judging from your email address, why am I not surprised you'd say this without knowing the arguments. > and that we all want to continue to use them, > whether or not these issues get resolved. IOW, most of these users > will continue to want to use these manuals. Sure. They might just find them in non-free, where they belong. Heck, I'll keep using them too. But I'll also have a good reminder never to include any of it in free code. A few years ago, I was in the "documentation is not software and can't be treating as such" camp. Then I found myself wanting to include bits of documentation in elisp code often enough to realise that documentation about code may well get mixed with that code. It's better to have a license that allows it. GFDL docs with Invariant Sections aren't compatible with the GPL! That's the _GNU_ GPL, the one that you're so happy to uphold and protect. > The net effect of this will be to force these few users to add nonfree > into our sources.list.. which will make it very hard for us to find > out what is free what is not before installing it.. and only serve as > a huger inconvenience. It's not a relevant argument to deter us. We don't want to do this to make it easy (we didn't put netscape in `main' years ago when it was the only real browser out there either). We want to do it because it's the right thing to do. > If you *have* to do this, until the situation is resolved with FSF, > can they atleast be put in a different section, say "nonfree-but-gnu" > (or abbreviated as "gnu"), so we can put that section in our > sources.list and still not have to put "nonfree" in our sources.list? That would discrimate against other non-free stuff. > DG http://gnufans.net/ Ah, a web site that uses the GFDL. Does it have Invariant Sections? If so, do users sometimes complain that they can't redistribute a bit of your content without also including the Invariants? Peter
