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

Re: Removal of non-free

Bernhard R. Link <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> 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: slef@jabber.at
      This is my home web site.   This for Jabber Messaging.

How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.

Reply to: