> There are differing views. The FSF is concerned whether the code and > documentation are free, so depending on whether the docu is bundled, they > might call it free.
Although I use Debian, I actually agree with the FSF line on this issue. It makes sense that *tools* (software, etc.) be free so that society can control the functional components that actually have the potential to be used for good or bad. On the other hand, non-functional components (media, artwork, etc.) I think the author should be able to distribute however they want- they are just data that does nothing by itself, but is actually consumed. Software, on the other hand, is not consumed, it is *used to an end*. To me, this is a rational extension of my views concerning property in general; although I respect personal property (commodities to be consumed) I advocate social ownership of capital- and software is essentially digital capital. It is important that society control it democratically. Is there any particular reason why Debian decided to be so finnicky about insisting on rejecting 'non-free' documentation and media? I'd be interested to know how that happened. In the Debian package collection, games like Alien Arena are bundled in non-free even though the game itself is under the GPL! It's a silly situation where people have to enable the non-free repository to have access to certain software that is actually free- in the same way that OpenMW is packaged in contrib even though it too is GPL- it just requires Morrowind data files, which are non-free. It's only because of Debian's insistence on providing non-free software as a 'service' (read dis-service) to its users that this situation even exists. If I was in charge of Debian, I would have only one repository, which would package only free software- including free software with non-free non-functional data. OpenMW, Alien Arena, etc. would be where they rightly belong- in main.
