Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Carsten Leonhardt <leo@debian.org> writes:
> > You presume to infer far too much in many ways.
> >
> > First, you infer that net utility declines when non-free is removed.
> > I am unconvinced.
>
> Why exactly did you package non-free/idled? Even though you seem to be
> unconvinced that it enhances net utility? Will you keep maintaining
It enhanced net utility at one time.
> the Debian package for it if your proposal passes?
It is somewhat of a misnomer to imply that I am maintaining it now :-)
While I am the maintainer of record for it, nothing has really
happened to it since 1996. There are better Free programs to do what
it does. It's an oversight on my part that I have not yet asked for
its removal anyway. It sorta dropped off my radar since I don't use
it and apparently nobody else does either :-) (The last bug against
it was in 1997, I think)
> > Secondly, you infer that users will have trouble finding non-free to a
> > significant degree. I am still unconvinced.
>
> Unpredictable, IMO.
I don't see what's so hard about adding a line to sources.list. I
don't object to telling people about the existance of a non-free
archive.
> > Thirdly, you feel that development of Free Software is not
> > sufficient. I am not convinced of that either.
>
> This is ambiguously worded.
Indeed. What I meant to say is, "You feel that the development of
Free Software that replaces non-free software is not sufficient to
address people's needs."
Reply to: