Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
> So what if Netscape is missing from unstable? Users aren't running
> unstable, and developers are sufficiently mature to know how to deal
Demonstrably untrue. I know several users running unstable.
> > > Anyway, none of these are shipped with Debian now. What is the harm
> > > in not shipping them on our FTP site?
> > Because a) You can get CDs with non-free on then, which are useful,
> That would not change.
Yes it would - when I build CD images, I'd no longer have a non-free
section of the archive to make a non-free CD image from. I only
include non-free if people specificlaly ask for it, but if they ask,
then they get.
> > b)having them on the ftp site means people can get packaged-up
> > versions of the non-free software they need/want, knowing that it's
> > well-maintained and will integrate properly with their system, and
> > that any problems can be dealt with via the BTS.
> Having them on any other FTP site would mean the same, wouldn't it?
Much has been made of the "If people really want non-free they'll find
somewhere else to host it" argument. It's still going to be
inconvenient for developers, and users. And perhaps
non-free.debian.org would have problems getting donated the space,
bandwidth, etc., whereas at the moment, it's not using up a
significant proportion of ours. It also begins to look like the split
BSD-community too. My objection is that we'll end up looking like
fanatics if we do this. No longer will Debian be the Free Software
distribution for everyone.
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."