On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > > That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see > > the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote > > non-free software or software which is dependent on non-free software. > > And, by "non-free", you mean stuff like GFDL licensed documentation?
Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being "software" but instead a unique concept - that of "documentation" <gasp; duck/>?? That for me would be a next logical step after dropping non-free. zen
