On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:05:37PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> [021115 23:33]: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:05:29PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote: > > > An even simpler, more in-your-face approach would simply be to (ab)use > > > debconf to put up one of those "informational" dialog boxes saying, > > > "This is a non-free program. You might want to consider the following > > > free alternatives: ...". This has the advantage that the user is more > > > likely to see it (s/he may not look at the package's dependencies), but > > > the disadvantage that s/he won't see it at all unless and until a > > > non-free package is installed. > > > > Proposals like this will require the cooperation of non-free package > > maintainers. If they feel it is condescending, insulting, misguided, or > > whatever to communicate the availability of free alternatives, they will > > simply refuse to do this. > > This is my eyes a reason against the GR. I don't how how it can be; Craig Dickson's proposal was as an *alternative* to the GR. -- G. Branden Robinson | It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to branden@debian.org | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
Attachment:
pgpUBEZz1eYmf.pgp
Description: PGP signature