Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel
> compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might
> well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM
> process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might
> decide to install all their software in /opt.
I'm assuming that the partisons of non-free on Debian have an interest
in there being a "secure" and "safe" non-free thing. If they do, then
they can build it. If nobody has that interest, then there's no need
to have the thing. I mean, which is it? Important or not? The point
is that Debian's infrastructure is not necessary to providing it, for
anyone who wants to. The status quo doesn't guarantee the same thing
either.
> I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your
> system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should
> deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution.
The Debian distribution already is 100% free software. What are we
splitting? I think that your case would be a lot stronger if you all
could manage to follow your own rhetoric correctly.
We aren't splitting a distribution at all. But the fact that it's so
easy that someone as well-plugged-in as you can confuse "the Debian
distribution" with "what is on the debian servers" is a good sign that
the current compromise is not working.
> Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though.
Nothing in the resolution says you shouldn't.
> I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free
> disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later.
> I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not
> time yet to remove it.
Is there a time at which it would be right to make non-free disappear
even though there is still some set of developers that want it? If
so, what are the signs to look for that we have reached such a time?
Thomas
Reply to: