Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> glorious words.
>
> trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
Well then, it should be no problem to remove.
> > If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only,
> > that difference is practically non-existant.
>
> then they simply don't use that software. they are no worse off than they
> would be if it didn't exist, while a number of people/orgs who are allowed
> to use it ARE better off.
>
> your point seems to be that SOME can't use it, so NOBODY should.
No. My point is that SOME can't use it; therefore Debian should not be
in the business of providing a mirror network for it.
> > Then you are confusing the "what should be allowed in main" argument with the
> > "whether we should distribute things that are not allowed in main" argument.
> > They are two distinct questions, and it seems to me that you are attempting
> > to influence the second because your opinions on the first were not shared by
> > a majority of Debian developers.
>
> huh?
>
> once again you accuse me of talking about main when i am talking about non-free.
That's a pointless distinction, since non-free is, by its very
definition, "that which doesn't meet the requirements for main."
> is this really the best that you can do? accuse anyone who is in favour of
> keeping non-free of wanting to pollute main with non-free stuff? oooh! what a
> scary bogeyman!
You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need
for me to make the accusation.
-- John
Reply to: