Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > > between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or
> > > > 'the non-free component of the Debian distribution'.
> I responded:
> > > Except, none of the introduced proposals get rid of this issue.
> > >
> > > One of them hides the current most glaring instance of it, but that's
> > > not the same thing.
> > >
> > > Or maybe you don't consider the debian servers [and their contents]
> > > to be part of debian?
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:51:06PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > What are you talking about?
> Various concepts of what is part of Debian.
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 haven't heard much from the "other side" yet to tell me what you
think would fix those problems. I haven't heard how keeping non-free
on the Debian servers helps in 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.
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?