Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main
On September 22, 2011 05:54:02 PM Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:14:32PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > >> > I hope Debian would honour the Social Contract and put the needs of
> > >> > the users ahead of software freeness concerns in that case.
> > >>
> > >> Do we have a name for the DFSG equivalent of Godwin's Law? Because
> > >> you just failed it.
> > >
> > > Well, that's disappointing... called a Nazi for daring to explore the
> > > possibilities. <sigh>
> >
> > I think you misread what Steve was saying. When you were calling out
> > those who are concerned about software free-ness, you were calling
> > them "Nazis". Steve was not calling you a Nazi.
>
> I for one parsed his statement as:
>
> In any discussion that involves the line "Our priorities are our users
> and free software", someone will use the first half to completely
> disregard the second and say anything non-free is ok as long as it
> might be useful to an user.
All I got out of it was:
Who's this joker telling me, who has been using Debian unstable pretty
much exclusively since 1995, filing bug reports, taking part in
discussions, etc., that I don't care about software freeness.
The most reasonable assumption to make of anyone participating in a Debian
mailing list is that they do care.
He did get something right--I probably am part of a minority...
GPLed stuff should be in the non-free archive. ;)
Reply to: