Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > The fact that I have already moved any non-free suggests in my
> > packages to the package description (even though I didn't have to)
> > should demonstrate that I am quite conversant with the difference.
> > However, what Manoj, Knghtbrd, I and others have been suggesting would
> > effectively make non-free suggests into no more than documentation for
> > people who don't configure their system to see non-free software.
> It would still be package meta-data.
And that is wrong why?
More to the point, even if I were to grant that it's wrong (which I
don't), is it wrong enough to overcome the technical objections, and
go with a solution which is clearly technically inferior; one which
has really annoying and bug-prone overheads and headaches?
Fergawdsakes, GNU Emacs comes configured to use Netscape and xv out of
the box, and has for ages. If the FSF isn't bothered by this level of
support for non-free software, why should we be?
I agree with RMS's original objection to the way the system works at
present, but I think that some people here are getting carried away
here with the ban-all-non-free-software mentality.
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.