Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> >>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Branden> I think you misunderstand the point of the GR. The point is
> Branden> *not* to make non-free software difficult to use.
> Interesting. But whether it is the ``point'' or not, it would
> make non-free software more inaccessible, and harder for users t get;
> it won't have pointers on the Debian web pages, it shall not be
> available to satisfy dependencies in DFSG packages, and, most critical of
DFSG packages already cannot depend on non-free osftware or they can't
go in main.
> You assume that the value added by Debian is worthless; but it
> is not so. Removing non-free would indeed make the software that
> currently resides in Debian harder to get, and worse maintained.
Add a line to sources.list.
My proposal did not say that the BTS or our lists could not be used
for non-free software maintenance.
> I find these statements here deceptive (and this is one of the
> things about this GR that leaves a faint distaste in my mouth). You
> must know that this GR would make non-free packages less accesible --
> and yet you are here with ``but it does not need to be so'' arguments
> when confronted with that possibility.
Less accessible, no. Different, yes. Change does not mean bad things
But let's look at it this way: SO WHAT? Debian is a FREE SOFTWARE
organization. Why do we give a hoot about distributing non-free
> Yeah, right. We just make sure that people supplying non-free
> packages that they deem useful to Debian and the users must jump
> through hoops, but we do not prevent them from doing so. Of course,
dpkg -i is no different on non-free packages than on free ones.
Neither, come to think of it, is apt. Or dselect. Where's this