Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:42:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:59:39PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > non-free software is exactly the issue at hand. If non-free software
> > does not allow us to do things like modify and autobuild it, which are
> > necessary in order to fix bugs, then how do we fix bugs in a non-free
> > package? We don't, because we can't. The GR would change this
> > situation for the subset of non-free which we can partially support.
> > For the record, this prospect (of being somewhat less able to support
> > software which is inherently crippled in terms of Debian's ability to
> > support it) does not bother me in the least.
> Well, if a lot of people share your feelings about non-free, perhaps you
> should propose an amended version of the GR to John where we just dump the
> stuff we don't have permission to modify and build on other architectures,
> so that we can fix bugs in it.
> (Proposing it to John is the best thing to do procedurally so that he at
> least has the chance to consider your amendment. If he rejects the
> amendment but you can pick up enough seconds for your version, your
> amendment would appear on the list of ballot options.)
I'm afraid I was unclear...I meant to point out that non-free software is
already difficult for us to support, and that removing it from the archive
would make it even more difficult for us to support. However, I would not
be bothered if it were impossible for us to support non-free software,
because it is not interesting to me.
Replace my last paragraph above with:
> > For the record, the idea of non-free software being removed from the
> > archive, and thereby making it even more inconvenient for Debian to
> > support, does not bother me in the least. I would not mind if it all
> > took a great flying leap from a high place.
I think that the GR, as it stands, is sufficient for me to express my
opinion in a vote.