Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:02:43PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:48:41AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > 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?
Hey, i said let's not start a non-free flamewar on debian-ocaml-maint.
> Well, it could be a good alternative. But it won't be distributed with
> CD... And some people don't have access to online apt repository.
Non-free cannot go on CDs anyway.
> > > 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.
>
> ... Indeed... Here is the problem ( but it is only my point of view ).
>
> > Example?
>
> Acroread ! Try to use other alternatives but i realy see the difference.
Bad example too, since acroread is no more in non-free, because
adobe's licence prohibit to have it beside pdflatex for example.
Good examples include the ocaml documentation, but also the unicorn ADSL
modem i maintain, or the nvidia 3D drivers.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: