Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
> > That's not currently a relevant issue.
> > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > non-free contains packages some people rely on.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are
> orphaned and broken.
> <insert slippery slope stuff here>
> It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?"
I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists.
> I posit that the enfranchised developers are quite capable of making
> that decision on their own, and that there is reason to be asking the
> question now. Hence, we vote on it.
I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and
thus the "it" you would have us vote on would not resolve anything.