Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
> > > non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
> > > isn't for all types of packages.
> > Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
> > backwards from "we want this stuff to be in main, freedoms or not"?
> Well, I would start with "we want this stuff in main" and work from
> there; consider what freedoms we reasonably need and what we can
> reasonably expect.
Sounds like "we want this in main, freedoms or not". I want it in
main too, but I'm not willing to compromise on freedom to get that.
> I have not been through the analysis myself for documentation.
> It's certainly been done to death for firmware though, where we have
> gone for freedom for freedom's sake.
Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
firmware needs less freedom. (The last part is not satisfied by
saying "because that's the only way we get it in main", which I think
was Henning's point; it's satisfied by saying *from the standpoint of
freedom* why it doesn't matter.)