Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Craig Sanders <email@example.com> writes:
> > > non-free software doesn't need to be discriminated against (and changing
> > > the rules & practices relating to non-free software after 4+ years is
> > > discrimination), ignoring it is sufficient.
> > We have always discriminated against non-free software, and rightly
> > so.
> we don't actively discriminate against it, we ignore it as much as
That involves discrimination! You ignore it because it is different.
This, you discriminate. (I feel you may want to consult a dictionary
with respect to the meanings of "discriminate" at this point; perhaps
you meant to use a different word.)
> > You might say that what I propose is exactly that: ignoring non-free
> > software.
> no, your proposal is not just ignoring non-free software. it is actively
> discriminating against it.
You cannot ignore a well-defined group of software without having some
bsais with which to discriminate between that software and all other
software. You simply cannot say that "all non-DFSG software goes
there" without involving discrimination; the act of deciding whether
software is DFSG or not is an act of discrimination.
> of free software zealots like you and me and also quite a few other
> debian *developers*, most people (i.e most of our users) want a mixture
> of free & non-free software. by making it easy for debian users to have
How do you kow this?
> that mixture, you create yet another reason for new users to choose
> debian. by making it difficult, you create yet another reason for new
> users to choose something else instead, redhat perhaps...or one of the
> others who care even less about free software ideals, suse or turbolinux
> or whoever.
DEBIAN IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST.
One would think that this would have sunk in by now.
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <email@example.com>