Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Sudhakar Chandra <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > forth the following observations: 1) it will almost certainly be ready
> > by the time woody is released (in about 2 years, of the potato time is
> > any guide); and 2) using one program to justify the continued support
> > of all current non-free programs is a weak argument at best.
> What if there is a set of programs that become vital but are non-free in
> the future? I'd consider something like rvplayer important for any Linux
Debian will not ship with them, and never has. And if I have anything
to do with it, never will be. This proposal does not effect the
> > 5. The existance of the non-free section is being used as a cop-out by
> > those that seek to peddle non-free wares.
> I thought the goal of Debian was to produce the best operating system
> possible. I did not know a Jihad against non-free software was the goal.
> I always interpreted the Social Contract to have a tone that was 'Live and
> Let Live' and not 'Live Free or Die'.
You are right, but these are not mutually exclusive. We can let
people use non-free software on our dist if they want. We can even
point it to them if we want. I don't want us to distribute it.