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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 12:19:40PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Jun 08, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > The resolution specifically names woody; potato will "ship" with
> > Netscape (at least, to the extent Debian has ever shipped with
> > Netscape).
> > 
> > Woody won't be an issue, it seems, for another year at least.
> So why make decissions of that sort *now*? Are you ready to guarantee
> Mozilla, some replacement for JDK, povray, xanim, a load of math programs,
> why, even gimp has some share in that - so *will you* guarantee that there
> will be a free replacement for all of the above (and more)? If such is your
> promise then go ahead, remove non-free from woody.

*I* am not ready to make any guarantees.  Most of that isn't software
I use.

> > None of that is impossible with the resolution.  The only sticking
> > point might be the BTS.
> *only*?

Yes, only.  I didn't say how big of a point that would be.

> > 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.
> *only*?? If you take some time to browse the archive of this thread you will
> find a post where someone proved that maintaining separate archive for
> non-free software will actually require devoting *more* time to its
> maintenance than it is done now! So, ironically, the non-free software will
> be paid more attention and care than it deserves - which is, as I uderstand,
> what you and the other supporters of the GR are trying to avoid! Where's the
> logic?

Careful with the "yous".  I'm just pointing things out and exploring
ideas.  I am undecided on the proposal.

Reply to: