Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
Quoting Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> Hello,
>
> I don't know if you are aware of that, but a discussion has been raging
> on debian-vote about the removal of non-free from our archive, our BTS,
> and so on.
>
> I have been involved in it (even proposed a GR ammendment, altough it
> was a bit 'bancal'), and also since i am involved with non-free as DD (i
> maintain the unicorn ADSL modem drivers) and as user (i need lha, but
> also also because of ocaml-doc and ocaml-books).
>
> Since the debian-ocaml team is involved with 3 packages in non-free, i
> would like to hear about your/our position on this issue (well, and
> eventually second the anti-non-free removal if you feel like this). I
> have also sent a small mention about this to the caml team this morning,
> in marge of an email concerning the bug report :
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227159
>
> About a QPLed caml-types.el from Damien Doligez. The debian-legal
> response to my request on this bug report has been less than thrilling
> (basically arguig that it would be polite to RMS not to distribute
> non-GPL compatible .el files :/).
>
> So, what is our position on this, both individually and as a group ?
I'm in favour of the entire removal of non-free.
Please note that my view on this was different fex years ago. At that
moment, the only existing working web browser was Netscape, PDFs couldn't
be seen without acroread.
Why am I in favour of removing non-free?
Because non-free debs are already second class packages. They are not
autobuilt. They are an unnecessary burden.
Furthermore, it wouldn't be much problem to put them on an external
machine (unrelated to debian). It is just a matter of changing an
APT source.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: