Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> We'll be better able to produce such procedures when we actually know
> what the circumstances are when non-free software becomes rare and
> unusual in the world. We're so far off that now, anyone who claims to
> be able to predict what circumstances are likely to bring that about is
> kidding themselves.
We have seen moribund packages in non-free; we've seen packages like
netscape which persisted for a long time despite free alternatives.
So I'm wondering if there is a compromise position in which non-free
stays around, but only for packages which are necessary, etc., and
that the judgment of necessity is made by someone other than just the
maintainer alone.
Thomas
Reply to: