Re: why not replace individual programs?
email@example.com (Pablo Baena) writes:
> I'm not hardly following the thread, somebody probably already
> mentioned this, anyway: stop trying to find replaces for propietary
> software as a reason for not supporting it.
I would like to end one fallacy now: Debian's definition of "non-free"
is not equivalent to "proprietary." Unfortunately, I think that this
is confusing some of the people engaged in this discussion. There are
many reasons why a piece of software can fail the DFSG and end up in
the non-free section. Some of the licenses of these pieces of software
differ only slightly from what we would call free. The difference
is significant, of course; otherwise we would not bother to make the
Nevertheless, I cannot abide the thought of someone grouping all of
non-free together as a collection of proprietary software, given away
for free (i.e., no cost), which we used to include for convenience,
but now we no longer have need for, because free alternatives have
matured to the point where we can replace them. Personal opinions of
the quality of the free replacements aside, this is nothing more than an
inaccurate description of our non-free section. It was, however, the
major rationale behind John Goerzen's resolution.