Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
Sorry for not repsonidng earlier, but my disk crashed, and i had a hard time
reading/writting mail until it was fixed.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:03:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> > non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
... skipped ...
>
> If you want to run free software on our system and need help understanding
> what we are doing, we will help you. However, we will not distribute your
> stinking capitalist dirty closed source garbage. *grin*
Well, ...
ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
or other such commercial software.
What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
DFSG ?
This is the case of various software that has big chances of becomming free in
the future.
Maintaining packages of them has more chances to convince the authors to
change the licensing, because they see that the maintainer is doing a good job
of it (well especially people that think if they go totally free, they will be
inunded by bug report from modified source or other such thing.)
Will you also remove this kind of package from the archive ?
And remember we put a lot of different things in non-free, not all the
packages there are on equal status.
> > What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> > packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> > repository for people to download. I think not everyone has the ressources to
> > do that.
>
> I should think so, as this constitutes "aid" rather than "distribution".
Why not clarify this in the discution, as to not vote for on thing, and then
have another happen.
Also, will there be apt-getteable archives of the package we remove from
non-free ? or will they just be available in rpm format ?
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: