Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I hear from you and from Sven the argument that because this GR
> doesn't fix everything, it's pointless. That doesn't seem right. It
> fixes *something*; it doesn't fix *everything*, but it makes a start.
I'm saying that the rationale -- where this GR only scratches the surface
of the changes which would need to be done to satisfy the rationale --
would lead us into bigger problems.
> I haven't heard much from the "other side" yet to tell me what you
> think would fix those problems.
I'd start with a better rationale.
> I haven't heard how keeping non-free on the Debian servers helps in
> the development of more free software.
You mean like documentation needed for development? Why do I need
to explain why such documentation helps the development of more free
software?
> I haven't heard how you plan to clarify what is and is not Debian. I
> haven't heard your proposals for how to communicate to users that
> non-free is not part of the Debian distribution.
You haven't? I guess you're saying I've not posted enough on this
subject? Or, if that's not your point, what is?
> So yeah, the GR does not fix everything. So what? It fixes
> something, it makes a start, and it's wrong to argue that we should
> never start because we aren't sure that the start will fix
> everything. Do you have a plan to fix everything?
If you have a problem seeing through a dirty window, you can fix it with
a hammer.
However, even though that's an elegantly simple solution, it's not always
a good idea.
My plan for "fixing everything" runs something like: first examine the
problem, then come up with a solution which makes sense. [And, no,
of course that won't solve everything all at once -- which is what I
think you were trying to lead me into talking about.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: