Re: Please stop the discrimination of non-free packages
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 07:48:52PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Jules Bean <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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!!!!
No, I'm not volunteering. I was responding to the implication that
such a list had to be automated to be useful. That's all.
>  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?
Agreed. main should have priority.
>  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.