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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:05:31AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <adam-debian@flounder.net> writes:
> > I don't know if the "free software community" was disturbed.  Maybe RMS and
> > the FSF were disturbed, and I understand Debian is under significant
> > political pressure from them to remove non-free (and I believe that is the
> > reason for this proposal)
> I suspect I would have heard if that were the case; it is certainly
> true that my support has nothing to do with rms and I've heard nothing
> from him on the subject recently.  I believe he is content with the
> current way the Debian archive works.  If you think he is some kind of
> Comintern acting behind the scenes to pull puppet strings, then you
> can rest assured that he is certainly not pulling mine.
> What I think I meant was that the compromise was made to meet two
> competing ends: one was the original Debian manifesto, which excluded
> all non-free software, and the other was those who wanted non free
> software added to Debian.  Those who held to the original Debian
> manifesto were what I meant by the "free software community".
> > All that being said, I don't think this propsal is a good idea because it
> > removes usefullness from debian and smells of fanaticism.  If the free
> > software community is confused as to the status of non-free, then we should
> > take steps to clarify that.  IMHO removing non-free entirely is a much more
> > radical measure than is called for.
> Can you please suggest some concrete steps to end the confusion then?
> Perhaps some of us might be willing to abandon our support for the GR
> if we knew that some of the problems with the current system were
> being address in some way.

PLEASE stop CC:'ing me.  I'm on the list.

How about speifically asking the user if he/she wants access to non-free
software, and adding the relevant lines to sources.list if the user says yes?
This was suggested by someone else and I believe it addresses some of the
confusion (if indeed such confusion exists)


Reply to: