Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> 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.
Ok, i thought that you would think so. Please everybody, this is not a
place for discussing this issue, or we will have a huge thread on it
which is maybe not the place here. I just wanted to know how we all
stand on this.
> 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.
Yep.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: