Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:44:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:19:51PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I think it has something to do with fonts being non-free.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > If that is the reason why this is bad, then your statement "there are
> > always more non-free packages to be uploaded" isn't something that's
> > a flaw in our choice to distribute them. Instead, it's a criticism
> > of people licensing those packages in a fashion which don't meet our
> > guidelines.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:04:58PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm not quite sure I follow... I said that just to point out that, at
> any given time, non-free will contain software that someone finds vital.
> I merely say that because I don't think the "just re-implement
> everything as Free Software" argument holds any water.
What, specifically, do you mean by this not holding any
water statement?
I can think of several mutually contradictory interpretations,
some I think are false, some I think are true but irrelevant
to the issue of getting rid of non free.
> > Also, you seem to have overlooked one of my questions:
> >
> > > > > Perhaps a logical place to start is, effective immediately, completely
> > > > > and totally ban the introduction of any new package into non-free.
> > > >
> > > > And your basis for this is the document of which the DFSG is part of?
>
> My apologies; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here. Can
> you rephrase?
I'm asking you what your basis for your drive to get rid of non-free is.
If your rationale is "because it doesn't comply with the Debian Free
Software Guidelines", I'm rejecting that because the social contract
and the DFSG were written as a single document, with DFSG being the
definition of "Free" used in the rest of the document.
--
Raul
Reply to: