Le jeu 14/11/2002 à 16:41, Osamu Aoki a écrit : > I believe "Free and GNU are good, bigot of any kind is bad." Maybe accusing people of bigotry is not a good way to start things. Your propositions are reasonable, and the GR is reasonable too, so let's discuss objectively the advantages and disadvantages. And don't forget that removing non-free would have a strong ideological impact, being ethically "good" for us but also giving a strong message that we can now live without non-free software. > I can live with some tighter restrictions: > (a) non-free with serious bug should be removed from unstable/testing > unless it is fixed in 1 year. > (b) Orphaned package (more than a month or so.) shall be removed. > (c) Threshold may be more than 3 DD to initiate new non-free package > (d) No FTBFS if it contains source and in this condition for a year. It would also be acceptable (to my eyes) if we'd tighten the non-free licensing guidelines. We should be able to maintain correctly the non-free packages, which means having the source and the right to patch it for bugfixes. We should also ensure that we have the right to autobuild all the arch:any packages, which would solve the testing problems. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature