Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:38:16PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Here's my theory. I think the non-free supporters should get a place
> to put the non-free stuff and not mooch off Debian.
'mooch' off Debian? Perhaps I think the pure free software supporters, who
don't care about the user should get a place and not 'mooch' off Debian; after
all, the Social Contract promises the user support for non-free software.
And where are these non-free supporters? Most the people I've heard from
here would much rather have free software then non-free software; the
argument is over how pragmatic we should be, not whether free software is
better.
> Debian is the free parts of the main archive. We all know that
> non-free is not part of Debian. I think it's a reasonable idea to say
> that it is not Debian's job to advance the commercial interests of
> software developers who are not willing to help out the free software
> movement.
Gee, you mean like TrollTech? No, I guess you mean Transvirtual (makers
of Kaffe)? Or how about Cygnus?
Oh, you mean stuff in non-free. Like Povray? Fractint? Cxhextris? Gee,
those are produced by small groups of people who don't profit from it,
and the non-free parts of the license are mostly to prevent commercial
explotation (as the authors see it.) mpg123? Gee, he didn't help out
the free software movement at all by letting them use his code in
a GPL'ed program (XMMS) under the GPL. Once again, no commercial
interests.
I'm sorry that so many people want to purge the ranks of the holy
of all its doubters. That's not the way to spread a belief. This
is also not the way to produce the best distribution.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
"A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and
a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never
see her again." - Sluggy Freelance
Reply to: