Re: Flame against non-free burning, time to think.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:03:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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]
Anthony> total main contrib non-free %main %contrib %non-free
Anthony> bo 1188 980 31 115 82.5 2.6 9.7
Anthony> hamm 1852 1524 101 227 82.3 5.5 12.3
Anthony> slink 2664 2269 97 298 85.2 3.6 11.2
Anthony> potato 4305 3889 123 293 90.3 2.9 6.8
Anthony> woody 8766 8291 203 272 94.6 2.3 3.1
Anthony> ---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony> sarge 10283 9734 257 292 94.7 2.5 2.8
Anthony> sid 11168 10555 306 307 94.5 2.7 2.7
Odd. I would say
1) it has been essentially unchanged since slink.
2) it has slowly been trending down. (with a bubble up in sid)
3) it is clearly diminishing in relation to total packages.
I would have thought that these measurements would put the "non-free is
growing explosively to the ruination of Debian" argument.
Jim Penny
>
> 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.
Reply to: