[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free



On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:13:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>  Branden> That's almost exactly what this proposal aims to do.  As it
>  Branden> stands we pay a contribute a significant portion of our
>  Branden> resources to the upkeep of non-free software.
> 
> 	we pay a contribute a significant?

I noticed that after I mailed it, but decided not to make a one-line post
to redact two words that any commonsensical reader would mentally excise
anyway.

Perhaps my analysis was flawed.

s/pay a//

>         Please, let the maintainers of the non-free stuff be the only
>  ones who spend time on this; the rest of us can just ignore that
>  bit. I would certainly say that non-free software should not feature
>  in releases, not caoulkt it have RC bugs, since it is not part of our
>  distribution, and this is not released.

All of the above can certainly be just as true with non-free outside
project as within in.

> 	Or are you taling about disk and bandwidth issues? non-free is
>  really dwarfed by the main distribution; and the added burdens are,
>  IMHO, more than offset by the added value they bring to Debian (yes,
>  non free software can have value)

You admit that this is a matter of opinion.  Certainly we contribute
resources.  Whether they're significant or not depends, I guess, on your
assessment of the value of disk space, bandwidth, and developer effort.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson            |     Damnit, we're all going to die; let's
Debian GNU/Linux               |     die doing something *useful*!
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |     -- Hal Clement, on comments that space
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |        exploration is dangerous

Attachment: pgpu1FO1n45CY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: