Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On 8 Jun 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <email@example.com> writes:
> > I don't see how the status quo is particularly bad. As several people have
> > already noted, the reasons behind this proposal are mainly motivated by
> > politics.
> Being motivated by politics is often a noble thing. Do you think that
> having principles is bad? That we should endeavor to make our
> decisions in as unprincipled a manner as possible?
Our principles have been stated and have been followed for a
number of years now. Changing our principles due to politics is not
likely to be beneficial.
> In any case, the status quo has one serious problem: many users think
> that non-free is part of Debian. In fact, the only thing about it
> that is "not part of Debian" is that sentence. In all other ways,
> non-free participates fully in Debian, and lots of users and many
> developers think this resolution is about "removing non-free from
> Debian", which implies that they think that non-free is currently in
I have seem little confusing regarding removal of non-free
from the Debian CD distribution. The difference is what is considered
the distribution by way of http/ftp/rsync and what is pushed down to
the mirrors. If there is confusion here, then educate people.
> > Perhaps what I find most distasteful is the general sentiment that software
> > developers right's don't matter unless they are developing free software.
> > Feel free to argue that this isn't the case, but I have seen it everywhere in
> > this community, and even more so after joining this list.
> I don't think any software developer HAS a moral right to try and
> restrict what I do on my computer using copyright laws. I understand
> that the current laws of the US and other countries disagree, and I'm
> doing what I can to help change that.
Personally I feel this is not relevant to this thread and so will
not respond to it here, but if you wish to debate some of this please feel
free to email me privately. :)