On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:30:43PM -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:40:37PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > A. That the non-free areas be removed from all non-released Debian > > > archives, such as "unstable" and "testing". All packages placed in a > > > non-free area in accordance with the definition in Policy section > > > 2.1.4 must be removed from the Distribution and archives, subject to > > > the restrictions in section B. The introduction or re-introduction > > > into the Debian Distribution or the Debian archives of any package > > > meeting the non-free definition in Policy section 2.1.4, or failing > > > the Debian Free Software Guidelines, shall be forbidden. > > This means that unstable and testing will have non-free removed, and that > > the removed software will not be re-introduced later, nor will new non-free > > software be introduced. > It seems to me that proposing something which prevents the > reintroduction of nonfree software any time in the future is short > sighted, and dangerous. > What if there's some new protocol developed called hsst, hyper super > hyper signal scent transfer, which enables the World Wide Smell to be > created. What if this WWS becomes hugely popular over the course of > the next year, but there is no open source client allowing you to > access hsst links in an effective, reliable manner, but there was a > non-free client called NetSmell, which lots of people were using. > In this case, users of Debian would be at a disadvantage, and new > users might not adopt debian because they want to be able to access > the WWS. Are you seriously suggesting that Debian users would be at a disadvantage by not being able to smell the Internet? I think keeping the stink out could be marketed as a major feature, personally... Debian comes with not only a built-in firewall, but also a perspire-wall! I'm trying to substitute something else in for a smell protocol that would be a more compelling reason to continue allowing new packages into non-free, and I'm coming up blank. The non-free, redistributable software that is most often regarded as "essential" is the software that I think it's most important that we help our users kick the habit of, since such software usually serves someone else's agenda by luring in the masses. Do we serve our users by making it easier for them to become dependent on new forms of non-free software? Do we serve Free Software by making it easier for corporations with proprietary agendas to gain access to the mindshare of our (not altogether insubstantial) userbase? > On the other hand, the lack of easy availability of NetSmell might > motivate debian developers to create a free alternative sooner. This is my position. The non-free archive is more likely to wither if we stop watering it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpEGoenysaNS.pgp
Description: PGP signature