[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:31:52AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If you really want to retain your "everything is software" point of 
> view, think about the consequences and work on them _before_ starting 
> the removals - and provide solutions for them that are available at the 
> time of the removals.


Debian has been considering the consequences of this for several
years now, over the course of debate in *thousands* of list posts.
The issue and its consequences have been considered at massive

And Debian has tried to work on reducing the impact, by trying
to convince the FSF to fix their license.  Not only have they
not done so, they've completely stonewalled, refusing to discuss
the issue at all.  Debian has done more than its part in trying
to fix this.  It didn't work.  It's time to remove the non-free
stuff (or will be soon).

> Actions mentioned in this thread like autobuilding parts of non-free, 
> providing an installer that includes parts of non-free [1] and providing 
> a CD with the distributable part of non-free are prerequisites if your 
> users are still a priority for you.

The magic words "users" and "priority" don't change one of the absolute
fundamentals of Free Software development: if you want it, implement it.
If *you* believe these things are important to users, then *you* implement
them--don't expect others to, and don't claim that non-free stuff should
remain in Debian because you're not able to do so.

Your argument here can just as easily be applied to anything non-free;
would you seriously claim that, if Qmail was in main and I was to file
a bug against it for being non-free, that it should remain in main until
I write a replacement "if users are still a priority"?  That's not how
it works.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: