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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:32:53AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:37:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> > 
> >  >> I think I disagree. I have not found Mozilla to be as yet an
> >  >> adequatre replacement for netscape; nor can I find something for the
> >  >> festvox packages, and I certainly would hate to lose angband and
> >  >> zangband (which are only in non free since they prevent commercial
> >  >> use; the sources are freely available for modification).
> > 
> >  John> I don't think that games justify the continued support of non-free
> >  John> software.
> > 
> >  	Please read up on festvox before you start labelling it. I
> >  think this reinforces my impression; you have not looked at the
> >  packages in non-free, and have not a clue about what you are
> >  advocating throwing away.
> There are four possible pieces of software to which John could have been
> referring:
> mozilla - An Open Source WWW browser for X and GTK+
> festvox - Package `festvox' is not available.  (hmm, dunno)
> angband - A single-player, text-based, dungeon simulation
> zangband - A single-player, text-based, roguelike game
> How creative of you to deliberately misinterpret his words thus.

he didn't misinterpret john's words. he provided a counter-example
(and one which he had already mentioned). 

by ignoring, deliberately or otherwise, the existence of non-games in
non-free, john's assertion was that a) (implicit) all of the non-free
items were games and b) (explicit) games aren't reason enough to keep
non-free around.

all it takes is one counter-example to dismiss that argument, and manoj
provided it.


craig sanders

Reply to: