So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposalif there were reasonable expectation of these not falling between the cracks.
Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian, especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type packages to use. What else could be useful here? Should clause 1's "non-free" terms be recast as "non-debian" and pledge support for interoperability?
[...]
Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair.As someone has said, asking those who agre with its use, and who do the work of packaging the software, to support its removal is equally unfair.
As far as I have noticed, no-one has explicitly asked the minority who package for non-free to support the GR, unless they are involved in the infrastructure. Maybe they should, as there seem to be 120 or so of them, which is about 12% if the "about a thousand" on http://www.debian.org/intro/about is accurate. 8 of those only package for non-free, which I find curious. I didn't count how many only have things in non-free as a related work of something of theirs in main yet. Maybe someone with non-free on their machines can obtain these numbers more easily.
Interesting question: should only GRs that expect unanimity be proposed? I think that would be very limiting.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/