Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
* Andreas Barth:
> Also, the distinction between free and non-free is broken by this. If
> even acceptable restrictions are considered non-free, than DFSG-free
> is no longer an helpful guide for our users and also not for ourself.
Yes, this is a very valid point. If more and more packages are punted
to non-free, non-free will certainly gain acceptance, especially if
non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
Software Foundation.
If we end up with a main distribution which only contains software
licensed under the three-clause BSD license for which source code is
mostly available, there's no longer a point in having a non-free
section.
Reply to: