Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
Quoting Sylvain LE GALL <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>:
> Hello,
>
> Well, it is quite heavy as discussion. I think non-free is needed for a
> lot of us ( as user and as DD ). In fact, since i have seen this
> discussion about GFDL and documentation in general, i can't stop
> thinking that is really a loose of time.
What is the problem if such non-free packages are moved to another
machine which is unrelated to debian.org?
> I can't understand the position about removing non-free. I was thinking
> that it was in social contract. Removing non-free is non sense. I have
> seen in debian-devel a thread about "top 5 things you want in debian".
> All is about : mplayer, java... All non-free. To my mind, if we remove
mplayer is not in Debian.
> non-free, we will loose a great number of user... Because if non-free
We will not loose so much users because there are not that many
non-free programs that don't have a free alternative.
> exists that's because free alternatives are not mature enough. To my
Example?
> mind, it is mainly a question of "integrism". A certain part of the DD
> want to have a "100% free" distribution. I don't think it is a good way
> of thinking... Our first aims is to provide -- all -- user a good
> distribution. If all free alternatives were as functional as non-free, i
> would not argue so.
Debian is already 100% free software. non-free is not part of Debian.
Again, why would debian need to give bandwidth and disk space for
non-free packages?
> Last but not least : regarding the progress of GFDL issue, if we remove
> non-free we will have a "100% documentation less" distribution. It is
> ridiculous. We will have software but no documentation... We will loose
> ocaml-doc and a lot more.
The GDFL issue is a different problem. I'm sure GNU would accept to
host APT repos for such packages.
> My position : keep non-free, stop the GFDL mess ( invariant in
> documentation seems normal to me... ).
>
> Concerning the .el... As usual, we have the opinion of a "100% free"
> supporter ( ie RMS ). I don't think it is a good position neither. To my
> mind freedom, is also the choice of upstream to choose their licence...
> ( you know : "free speech / free beer" )
I'm no even sure about arguments given.
> I hope debian will not become : Debian "GNU only/Mach" ( after all,
> Linux is not free -- from SCO point of view ;-) ).
I hope we'll keep using Linux because there is no better alternative
else than FreeBSD 5.x.
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: