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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

** On Jun 10, Jeff Licquia scribbled:

> > > 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.
That you don't use those packages doesn't make them unnecessary. From
non-free I use only Netscape, but it still doesn't make the software
unnecessary, does it? Saying "I don't use it, so I don't give a damn" isn't
a way of thinking a person responsible, even partly, for such important
thing as an Operating System of any kind should present. In the long run
what a developer uses or doesn't use has no importance whatsover to the user
of the operating system in question - distributions and operating systems
exist becouse of, and for their users. One might call a developer a "public
servant" in that respect - it's the audience, it's the users who demand
software, who have needs. The developer's responsibility lies in provinding
the users with what they need. Therefore I'll just repeat what I said before
- until we can replace all the non-free software with equally good and
functional, free counterparts, until that time we have *no* moral right of
taking it away from the users (and this includes full support for the
software in relation to the operating system we represent).
> > > 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.
Ok, I misinterpreted the word.

> > 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.
Perfect. I just hope that politics won't be put before the needs of the
Debian users. See point 4 of the Social Contract. Users are mentioned there
BEFORE software... That wording means something as well, in my book at


Attachment: pgpGcAwxmpBdX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: