[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea



I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.

On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]

Yep, there's problems. We don't know how difficult it will be to overcome them, but it may be possible to overcome them, one way or another.

That said, i may write to licensing@gnu.org, what should i ask them ?

Really, whatever interests you. Some questions may be answered in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs I think, but they may have interesting opinions about things where -legal participants were not sure.

Please could you look into writing a replacement library for this
soft-ADSL library ?

Sorry, I work flat out and don't need it myself right now.

I think you are mostly wrong about "without even bothering to look at the issues in detail". Many of the participants here (with a range of
Well, then prove me wrong, and look at all the software in detail.

You've changed your accusation. I think that you're probably right now: no one person has examined all of non-free. That is not the same as not having looked at the issues. Possibly they don't know them all, but do you? If so, can you publish a full bullet list summary of them for us?

I
have cited three examples i care about, and nobofy from the "let's
remove non-free camp" has responded on them.

I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).

We make mistakes sometimes already and have to correct them. This sometimes results in the package being removed entirely and every maintainer I've worked with has been honest, thoughtful and polite about it. I doubt that will change.

the huge amount of installer packages that will proliferate if this is
going to happen.

Would an installer depend on non-free, thereby being unable to go in main?

Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess?
Because i have more usefull things to do with my time ?

I think you probably have more useful things to do than lob idle random accusations around, too.

--
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/



Reply to: