Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:05:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Tell that to the folks who imply that John is hypocritical for doing so,
> and use that ad homimem implication as a means of attempting to
> undermine support for the General Resolution. (The implication being
> that John Is A Bad Person for Telling Us To Do As He Says And Not As He
> Does, and Therefore What He Says Must Be As Bad As He Is.)
Really? When coming from John himself, I interpret it more like a
patronizing, "a lot of my friends are black" type statement. And when I see
him use it that way, it becomes abundantly clear to me why he has left his
non-free packages in the archive.
> > It takes something that people have access to now and shuts it off. I bet
> > when your hot water stops working, you're on the phone with a plumber within
> > an hour. Why? You don't need it, you can get just as clean with cold
> > water.
> So, it is your contention that Debian is operating something like a
> public utility by distributing (some) packages that do not meet the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> That is a perspective that should be elaborated upon.
Water, electricity and gas are utilities. Hot water is not. You fail in
your attempt at purposely missing my point.
Debian adds value to itself by distributing non-free. We would be both
devaluing Debian, and acting against the needs of our users (which are
supposed to be paramount) by removing non-free.
Adam McKenna <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>