Xavier Maillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Jérôme Marant wrote: > >>Yeah, after all, the social contract merely states: > >> > >> We will never make the system require the use > >> of a non-free component. > >> > >>Now I realize what that means: "The system" does not require the > >>non-free documentation, although one could argue that its users and > >>developers probably will require it. Quite sophisticated. > > > > > > Perhaps grabbing documentation from non-free will be a minor > inconvenience > > for many users. We shall see. > > I think there's more to it than that. A lot of information crucial to > Debian's > development (such as the glibc documentation) will be moved to non-free, > and I > guess that almost every Debian developer will need to install one or the > other > non-free documentation package. Thus, the claim "Debian is 100% free, > because > we have removed the offending GFDL documentation" is dishonest, in my > opinion. > > The sentence "Debian is 100% free" is a lie in the sense that Debian > developpers maintain contrib and non-free repositories.
Debian = main, as it has always been. End of story. > I do not want non-free to hit my sources.lst but in the other hand, I will > have to add it in order to read GFDL'ed documentations. > > What a mess !! > > UTUTO is ready to be installed on my main machines (UTUTO is *really* 100% > free) RMS has stopped endorsing Debian a long time ago. I'm surprised you haven't dropped it earlier. -- Jérôme Marant
