Roland Rosenfeld <email@example.com> writes:
> John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other
> > Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software
> > -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software.
> This sounds very inconsequent to me. On the one hand you plan to
> completely ban non-free software from our archives, on the other hand
> you offer to use the BTS, the upload queues, the developer-keyring,...
I do not support those. I merely offer the olive branch as a
compromise to the more hard-line people on the other side. It is not
me being inconsistent; it is me trying to build a consensus.
> You also wrote, that you want to keep contrib on the Debian servers,
> where most packages will be uninstallable, because the dependencies
> cannot fulfilled.
I did not write that I want to keep most packages installable. I also
am unsure that I want to keep contrib around indefinately. This GR
does not touch contrib.
> nothing will change. But I don't see how the BTS can be used by
> packages, which aren't handled by Debian (why doesn't the BTS handle
> reports for the KDE packages now?).
It could if Debian wanted it to. Perhaps it would be useful for the
transition. Perhaps not.
> And don't forget: All intended and implied changes consume human
> power. Human power, which IMHO could be better used to support free
> software instead of engrave principles in stone...
Weak argument, human power is being used to support non-free software