Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software
On Nov/12, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > As you're not a member of the Debian project, you don't get any say
> > in what's to be accepted or not
> Apparently you forget about a specific part of the Social Contract.
> (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software...)
Note that "Users" goes before "Free Software". It can be useful for
our users to recommend gimp-nonfree in this case.
> > . And given that you appear to have a religious objection
> Does this assertion have any ground?
Yes. Your response is disproportionated. You seem to have been
personally offended by this issue, and it shouldn't be like that. Take it
easy. Breath deeply. Take a nap. Eat some chocolate.
> Sure, keep lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom,
> there's no matter discussing that.
I don't see how making more packages available to our users is
"lowering the quality of Debian in matter of freedom". I could understand it
if it was the opposite, i.e., making *less* packages available (restricting
the freedom of our users to choose). But anyway, I never understood why so
much fuss for the non-free section removal, so I'm not the most suited to
speak about it.
> (I suppose that mozilla should advertise from macromedia website, at
> this point).
Why? Does Macromedia support Mozilla in some way? (I'm genuinely
interested in this; if it's true, I had no knowledge about it)
--
Roberto Suarez Soto Alfa21 Outsourcing
robe@alfa21.com http://www.alfa21.com
Reply to: