Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> Branden> So you have changed your mind that user confusion about what
> Branden> is and is not part of "Debian" imposes a cost upon us? Or
> Branden> do you feel that the utility of even one package in
> Branden> non-free, no matter what it is, is a benefit that outweighs
> Branden> that cost?
> Not quite. I think, though, I have changed my mind about the
> proposed solution. I think we do need to more strongly brand the
> non-free section, and what is Debian.
Good to hear you changed your mind :-)
By the way, we ask whether to include non-free in source.list or not
during initial install process. But I agree this is too weak.
> Incidentally, if packages were indeed signed, we could only
> have Debian distribution packages signed; we can have apt/dpkg remind
> people that packages are non free, we can add a header that points
> to closes free replacement, which can be presented to people.
This is not a bad idea at all to embed vrms package functionality to the
core installer. This is promotion of FREE software and is not heavy
handed unilateral action to the USER community by the majority of DD
through GR.
(I am sure that can be disabled by the user but that is their choice.)
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: