Re: Removal of non-free
Bernhard R. Link <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
> in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
> I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable
> alternatives (not by closing my eyes and leaving those helpless,
> that cannot), and the non-free things to draw as few labor as possible.
> I believe havinig non-free areas ourselves is the best
> way to achieve this.
Can you give any other reasons? I don't like the ones you give below.
> It radically dicharges pressure to include or
> leave anything non-free in Debian.
Such pressure is irrelevant, unless you think there's a realistic chance
of the basic "100% free software" pledge being changed as a result?
> (And thus makes it easier to
> apply pressure to change the licence).
Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result
of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before?
> And having it implemented as satallite gives us not only control which
> things get in and to throw things out, but also makes sure it does
> not draw labor to create alternative infrastructure.
Indeed, but it has been suggested that we should use that control to throw
it all out. I think that the time for that has come. It will save some
mirror space and transfer, while any work likely to be done by the few
non-free apologists who will persist ;-) is fairly minimal (set up a BTS,
apt repository - what else?).
I assume that only a reply to the Catholic part was supposed to be off-list,
as this seems fairly on-topic.
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: email@example.com
This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.