On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:23:43PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> The only "social cost" that I've seen semi-effectively argued so far is that
> "some people think non-free is part of Debian".
What is unpersuasive about:
Every day a non-free package is "better" than a free alternative
(or no alternative at all) is a day in which less work is
potentially done by Debian developers and others on a free
alternative to create or improve it, a day in which there is
less public clamor for such a tool, and a day in which there is
less visible market need apparent to a company that may be
willing to sponsor or underwrite the development of a free
alternative in furtherance of its own ends.[1]
?
Is it your belief that most people in the Free Software community would
rather do nothing than work on Free Software?
> I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why the remedy for this
> particular problem is to remove non-free from our archive.
You don't think the inability of anyone to get non-free Debian packages
from a Debian archive site or mirror would dispel people's notions that
they can get non-free packages from "Debian"?
It strains my credulity, but I guess I will take you at your word.
[1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021113201917.GN21010@apocalypse.deadbeast.net>
--
G. Branden Robinson | Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your
branden@debian.org | choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp_9Qyidn86U.pgp
Description: PGP signature