On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:52:08AM -0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> wrote: > > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as > > a useful service. > > People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service. People could also provide everything else Debian does. That doesn't mean it's any less a useful service, or less in the interests of Free Software (after all, open standards are sort of crucial to interoperation...) > [...policy vs users?...] > > Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF > > of recently? > > I don't think so. Then I guess we disagree. > > Things shouldn't stay in non-free, no. [...] > > Would you support a "maximum length of stay" proposal for non-free? I would support a maximum length before re-evaluating whether something was worth keeping there. I think a lot of things persist well past the point where it's reasonably justified; I think (though I wish it weren't true) that some things like old RFCs are unlikely to be republished under a Free license anytime soon (and some might never be, since the authors are dead; Jon Postel, for example, is the author of many early RFCs). However, I think that set is also small, relatively static, and that the vast majority of non-free can and should be re-evaluated and re-justified periodically (periodicity up for discussion). -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgphFfQme5WXd.pgp
Description: PGP signature