Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:56:23 -0600, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:19:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is, in my opinion, equally wrong headed. Non-free is present
>> because at least one developer found the packages there useful
>> enough to buck the trend and package. I think it is important we
>> continue to provide a repository of useful software for which we do
>> not have free replacements.
> I guess the question that keeps occuring to me is: why must Debian
> provide this service now?
Because it helps our users? I t makes Debian a more useful
solution? Because a Debian developer has deemed this package
important enough to spend time and effort and create this package?
> If we had not provided it all along, would we start it now, or is it
> just here because it's easier to keep it here?
I am not spending time debating it here because it is the easy
thing to do. The easy thing to do would be to be apathetic and let
people have their way. I am here because I believe that the balanced
view that Debian has always presented (clearly choosing free software,
but not falling into the trap of ideological zealotry) is an
important characteristic of the project, and needs to be fought for.
> Perhaps what I'm looking for is a nice summary of the arguments
> against moving it. It seems that the reasons for not moving it
> change on an almost daily basis sometimes.
The specifics change, as the contents of the section change --
but you are missing the forest for the trees. Individual trees are
unimportant. The presence of the forest is not.
manoj
--
He that loses hope may part with anything. -- Congreve
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: