Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:18:36AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > >
> > > Because a) You can get CDs with non-free on then, which are useful,
> > Which you could still do, assuming someone cared enough to set up an
> > alternate non-free archive.
> Yes, but we have the infrastructure in place now. I still don't see
> what we gain by throwing it out.
Technically, it's pretty obvious that the proposal is a bit loser; the
question before us is whether the non-technical gains are worth the
> > But nothing prevents Debian developers from packaging, signing, and
> > uploading whatever they want; the only difference is that the archive
> > they upload to will not be an authoritative upload queue for Debian.
> But non-free isn't *now*! Surely if developers want to upload to the
> non-free section, so that people with access to mirrors that contain
> non-free (or CD provides that burn non-free CDs) can use them, then
> why should you stop them because you think they're morally wrong?
[Careful with the 'you'. I'm not necessarily advocating the proposal;
I do see some merit in it, though, and am exploring some ideas.]
If I thought that non-free software was morally wrong, I would likely
oppose its use in every way I could, including supporting this
proposal. Certainly Debian is a haven for people who believe this
way, and who may be pained to see the confusion that often results in
people's minds (witness the pleas from some people not to "take
Netscape out of Debian", for example).
I don't see this question as stopping anyone from any uploading
activity they may be taking part in. Rather, the proposal seeks to
ensure that Debian resources are not used for such pursuits unless
those pursuits are in line with our stance on free software.