Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:23:01PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...] I don't think that would be any better morally than a
> >commercial firm's decision to abandon support for a product which was
> >not sufficiently profitable.
> Would anyone argue that orphaning or deleting individual packages was
> immoral? That happens already.
Removing packages that aren't being looked after with the maintainer's
approval is a different matter to removing packages that are being
maintained, that the maintainer would like to continue maintaining.
> >Any user who doesn't like
> >non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list.
> Are developers who will not agree to use non-free blocked from jobs
> where they ought to deal with it? Are there such jobs?
None that I know of.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Reply to: