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 <firstname.lastname@example.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
> 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
all it takes is one counter-example to dismiss that argument, and manoj