[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-

From: Luke Shumaker
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:24:01 -0400
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/24.5 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:43:04 -0400,
Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Well, unless I was really blind, I couldn't see the original sender
> (Luke Shumaker?) saying anything about "FOSS".

I didn't start the thread, but it was my email that André was directly
replying to in the first email that went to libreplanet-discuss.

> It's funny fact that there is a GNU package/software called Arch, so
> making a distinction as to which "Arch" the contract talks about is a
> good thing.

I was thinking about GNU Arch too, but it didn't make it into my email :)

> [Insisting that all everything be Free Culture] actually makes most
> free software projects ineligible for inclusion on system
> distributions that follow the current Definition of Free Cultural
> Works, since following this definition results in questions of
> whether that file is the preferred form of modification or the
> complete corresponding source.

Not to mention that sometimes the the "culture" stuff is just
straight-up not Free Culture.  Take for example, the several essays by
RMS that are included with Emacs.  I think that stripping those out
would be insane.

We'd also probably run into the same issue as Debian with considering
some GNU manuals non-free.  I absolutely oppose anything that would
require us to not ship GNU manuals.

Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]