On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> 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.
I would much prefer to mention the FSF directly, actually. Not because
it's about their software (or documentation), but because it's about
their opinion about what is free. So we get:
- main (dfsg-free)
- fsf-free (non-dfsg-free, but free according to fsf)
- non-free-firmware
- non-free (for all other classes)
Thanks,
Bas
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see
http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see
http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG
v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjRSGkACgkQFShl+2J8z5WL8wCfcpGNZOSdgXLxPGAWajq9Fswb
bJMAnRtdcCkrFbxXGzq3FwR9jRDp1xzO
=1qY0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
