On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:51:17AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> non-free is nice way to absorb differences in opinion how tolerant we
> should be towards non-free software. Closing space on weak license
> materials. Enforcing one sided view on them, looks to me very strong
> handed approach to reduce non-free. "They should die because they are
> not needed" is the right approach. Time shall solve the problem.
It hasn't so far. We have added packages to non-free faster than we've
been getting rid of them.[1]
Perhaps Free Software is indeed impotent to replace non-free software,
at least at a pace that exceeds the public's appetite for the latter.
If that is the case, perhaps we should consider amending the Social
Contract to be *more* inclusive of non-free software, not less.
[1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021114103645.GA943@kleinmann.com>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021115040651.GB32282@azure.humbug.org.au>
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss,
branden@debian.org | is omniscience hell?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpPZ0DY_v0IZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature