Re: Please stop the discrimination of non-free packages

[James Troup <james@nocrew.org>]

Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk> writes:

> It would be useful without automation.  Simply maintain a (probably
> short) list of non-free packages which autobuild nicely, and
> legally.

Are you volunteering, to do so?  Was Adrian?  If not, you better do
so, so _you_ don't ``discriminate'' against non-free packages!!!!

In any event this fails to address several other points people have
raised[1] and introduces others[2].

-- 
James

[1] Such as Richard's point about dependency on non-free or unpackaged
    software, or Branden's point about the fact that we simply don't
    want to and who are you to try and make us or judge us for not
    doing so?  Or the fact that we're unequivocally and obviously
    lagging in porting our main packages, why on earth should we
    ``discriminate'' against free software packages in main by
    prioritizing non-free above them?

[2] Such as the fact that people running the auto-builders
    (i.e. taking the legal risks) have to rely on the legal skills of
    the ficti^H^H^H^H^Hhypothetical person who maintains this
    ficti^H^H^H^H^Hhypothetical list[3].

[3] NB: this is not the same as main, non-free licenses are often an
    order of magnitiude harder to grok correctly compared to main
    licenses.