Re: Debian and non-free
On 11512 March 1977, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I think that dilutes the message that those packages are
>> non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the
>> documentation under a free license.
> I prefer a division by reasons (but it would be a lot more complex,
> so probably not feasible):
> hardware/software "dilemma"
> trademarks, patents, non-commercial,
> legal concerns, etc.
> e.g. GFDL, various non-free compression programs
> and RFC. This is more a political decision
> i.e. old binaries/BIOS, which could maybe seen
> as orphan works. Some fans could try to free
> the code
> the worse category
> - as netscape and areader, they should be removed
> when good alternative are available.
> - as for flash: waiting for other project to mature
> (which is soon expected)
> - e.g. commercial fonts.
> -I think JDK is in this category: available good
> alternative, but some people need it for
> - Maybe also some keys, certificates
Oi, people, how about doing something sensible instead? Like - fixing RC
bugs. Or playing some (free) games? Or go and drink some keys while
signing some beers... :)
Wasting time on non-free just for the sake of some random, completly
unimportant (IMO), possible endorsement of some random organisation that
can't even provide free documentation doesn't seem worth the effort.
Especially not at this time of the release cycle it is bad to draw away
manpower for something that, if it has to be done, should be done soon
after a release happened.
Also, if it ever gets decided that non-free should no longer be where it
is now (which we are *far* away from), it will be a pretty easy task to
setup an archive for it. And *then* will be the time to discuss how it
possibly might have an over-engineered layout.
"Essential: Yes" -- useful for a message when you do apt-get remove bash: