> The reality is much of Debian's > main includes software that does not jibe with the FSF's > definition.
It's software under the original Artistic License, software recommending nonfree software (which is free and FSDG-incompatible), software being fixed or something else? > Furthermore Debian applies standards to documentation as > well, while the FSF's position is that things like documentation do > not necessarily have to be freely editable for example - they're > focused on software. https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html disagrees. Essays included in documentation of some GNU packages are a different case, they aren't documentation (e.g. their purpose is explaining the opinions of the original developers, not showing how to use the software, updating software doesn't change these opinions so there is no need to modify the essays).
pgpNM8wCtBKUm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
