Re: OT: unicorn, was: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I think it went to the
list yesterday.
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.
Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
the word, and what will actually happen.
Not just word play, as there is a large difference between the two.
The point I wanted to remind people that it's not really safe to draw
many conclusions from non-response, which you didn't. I think the
non-response is unremarkable and I thought I responded, anyway.
Yep, but because there was non-free. I know i would have opposed some
of
those decisions if there was not non-free. I guess others would have
to,
especially in the border cases.
That doesn't really change the free/non-free status of the package,
but it might make consensus more difficult to achieve.
Also, the amount of non-free
documentation in main sets a bad precedent.
I agree.
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?
Yes. naturally. Any other stance would be highly hypocrit on our part.
Brain fart, excuse me.
--
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: