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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

> >>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> 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
phantom hoop?

Reply to: