Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think
> > are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ?
>
> It might or might not happen that way. I believe that non-free should
> be removed from Debian regardless. I've told you my reasons.
Ok, thanks for confirming this.
> > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
>
> Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a
^^^^^^^
Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps)
have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers.
> reason why it's good.
No, but it is nice to distinuguish the two things in the argumentation
for the removal of non-free.
And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of
Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same
case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But
this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive,
even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably)
signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for
imaginary gain.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: