Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
- From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:43:38 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87wucrztol.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 22096.1062465789@mixed> (Peter S. Galbraith's message of "Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400")
- References: <uiud6em9j1u.fsf@echo.linpro.no> <20030831114026.GA938@chrystal.opal.dhs.org> <m365kednhv.fsf_-_@dionysos.nib> <20030831124846.GA1004@twinette.migus.eu.org> <20030831111758.07d6e6b3.kov@debian.org> <m3n0dp965t.fsf@dionysos.nib> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0308311227120.15637@bms> <20030831234746.GA6190@hezmatt.org> <20030901014534.GA1801@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <[🔎] 22096.1062465789@mixed>
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> said:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only
> freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point
> to make another installer, then that's pretty weak. It's sole
> purpose is to install something that isn't even free enough for
> `non-free', so why should it be listed in the freer than non-free
> contrib?
> Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of
> their real state of freeness.
While I reject the argument hat installer packages ought to
move to non-free since they cause non-free software to appear on the
system (there are non-installer packages that also do that if they
depend on non-0free packages), I do find this line of reasoning
persuasive.
manoj
--
Depart in pieces, i.e., split.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: