Just for the record, for those wanting to change the requirements according to what is taken as consideration with this proposal: I spoke with contributors of the directory and some organizers of the meetings (Jgay participated on the debate), and we consider that these crippleware *are* somehow useful free/libre software (specially because a free software activist can make a parent project out of it), and so we came up with two alternatives that can be used *instead* of removing the entries. At least one of the following is recommended:
* Insert a message telling the viewer that the entry is about the *free/libre* edition of the software, and not about the non-free one, and that the free software movement doesn't recommend the non-free one. I, *personally*, suggest that this message is displayed with emphasis (like red boxes, with warning symbol and so on), but it's OK to have a simple text message (similar but longer than what the entry about Krita has). * Instead of linking to the projects official page, resources, documentation, source code and so on: Link to a page from a free system distribution that provides such software. This avoids attracting people to the non-free functional data.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
