Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects) > and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and cons > for the majority of people on the long terms. > > FDL is free enough for Debian. FDL is free.
Pretty large inconveniences for it to be called free. > > > I still wonder why people want to put stuff and stuff in main, > > regardless of the consequences. The main section is for FREE SOFTWARE, > > do you understand what it means? Not half-free software, not "free > > enough" software. Free software. > > </rant> > > I still wonder why people with the same ardour and consistency do not speak > about distribution of software in the non-free section? Why Debian > distributes non-free? Don't knock it! We might need it soon to hold all the GFDL manuals. Seriously, I think the fact that we have non-free for `mot quite free' stuff helps keep main completely free. Why do you care if you have to download license-inconvenienced manuals from non-free? I don't. I'll download them anyway if I need them. But it'll be a reminder every time that the license isn't as free as stuff in main.
