Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> When the free software community was originally disturbed that Debian
> was going to be distributing non-free software, we were told it was
> OK; it wouldn't be part of Debian, it would just be distributed for
> the convenience of users.
And indeed, this is the way it should remain.
> Now it turns out that the non-free advocates regard this as a merely
> semantic distinction of no importance, and that makes me think the
> compromise was flawed from the beginning.
Possibly, but what about the free software people like myself who
recognise that our users want some non-free software, and that we
should provide that convenince since it's no skin off our back; that
the quality of Debian as a whole (and therefore its value as a free
software advocacy tool) from the point of end-users is valuable, that
this GR will simply make us all look like fanatics? It's beginning to
sound like you(pl.) are trying to make us out to be non-free software
advocates, which simply isn't true.
There have been some suggestions as to how to reduce confusion
elsewhere; OTOH, in the midst of a flamewar about a (IMHO very
damaging) GR is not the time to get decent discussion going on about
how to proceed.
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
Reply to: