Stephen Frost <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The reason seems to be completely political. There are no
> technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may
> not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and
> a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt
> there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial
> to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it.
As I have said before, I have not yet decided what my position
will be on this GR when it comes to a vote. I do object to
misstatements on either side of the issue.
The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for
non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that
Debian would be distributed by The Free Software Foundation. This
would effectively prevent a non-free section.
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <email@example.com>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9