Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
- From: Richard Stallman <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:34:15 -0400
- Message-id: <199907032034.QAA03614@psilocin.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (message from Chris Waters on 30 Jun 1999 17:33:40 -0700)
- References: <Pine.SOL.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.3.96.990629213941.11028I-100000@Wakko.deltatee.com> <19990630100506.Q21210@rdm.legislate.com> <19990630092025.B11896@quango2.watervalley.net> <email@example.com> <19990630121414.A11688@humberto.polisci.olemiss.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990630163005.G31707@debian.org> <email@example.com>
Not at all true! He was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion
that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they
were commented out *by default* -- or even commented out only if
someone responded "yes" to a question like, "would you like to see
only truly free software".
I think that a question "Would you like to see non-free packages?"
would be an ineffective solution, since only truly committed idealists
like me would answer no. It would be like asking children, "Should we
offer you some candy before your meal?"
I would like to have a way that the GNU Project can recommend the
Official Debian system, without recommending the non-free packages.
Some people such as Carter want to recommend the non-free packages
too. For the sake of compromise, I've designed proposals that give
them a way to do what they want, as well as giving us the way to do
what we want.