Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:26:09AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I'd really like to see a stat on how many packages in non-free are actually
> > produced by a commercial entity; I'd be willing to wager that it's less than
> > 10% of all of non-free. Most of the *useful* packages in non-free are
> > almost-free, that is, they are bound by one particular restriction that
> > makes them incompatible with the DFSG. I can name a few --
> I'm thinking only of the packages which get cited as major
> justifications for having non-free, things like netscape, acroread,
> and so forth.
Well personally I could care less about those packages -- nothing else
depends on them and they are easily obtainable from well-known sources. JDK
however is a biggie, and it has no (decent) open-source replacement
available. JDK is really what makes that particular argument worth having.
Netscape, acroread and realplayer are just cruft. Anyone with half a brain
knows where to find them and can easily download and install them. We just
add one extra level of convenience.
Anyway, I don't believe Debian started distributing this "non-free" software
for the good of the authors, or as a favor to corporations. We are
distributing it for the good of our users, to make their lives easier and to
(help) assure quality and security.