Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > have indicated that non-free is currently required.
> > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off.
> > Which part of that is not clear to you?
>
> The part where you insist that this clause is not in support of our goals
> for totally free software is the part that I cannot agree with. And it
> doesn't have anthing to do with a part being unclear.
>
> non-free (admittedly a misnomer) HAS promoted license changes that have
> moved packages from non-free to the main disto. This IS the purpose of
> this clause, and it DOES work, so why insist that we destroy a working
> process simply because you don't understand that it does not conflict with
> Debian ideals but only with your ideals (or your understanding of how this
> clause effects your ideals)
I'm confused now. Was this message directed at me Dale?
I'm in complete agreement and always have been. We need non-free
and should continue to maintain it. I suppose Anthony's proposal
to move its location to demote it a little. I do not support
John's GR.
As I said above, "We will be guided by the needs of our users,"
and our users have indicated that they still need non-free.
So we need to keep maintaining it.
> I say again: "Vote no to any modifications of the spirit of this document"
Agreed completely.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: