Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>
>> Non-free is for GNU documentation.
>
> I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a
> couple of sub-categories. Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but
> "non-free-docs" would be just as good, besides "non-free-firmware" and
> "non-free" for the rest.
I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than
just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing.
non-free-docs
non-free-firmware
non-free
It would be nice if non-free was a simple umbrella for non-free-*.
Possibly non-free/documentation and non-free/firmware?
While the decision of what is firmware, documentation, or other should
be policy-guided, it would be left to the developer to decide which
category best applied.
--
John H. Robinson, IV jaqque@
debian.org
http ((((
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,
sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html ((((
