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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http (((( WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html (((( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]