Re: GR: Removal of non-free (with explanation)

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
> with some extra text surrounding it]

Thanks Andrew for doing this.

> It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
> and/or understand my proposal. For reference, here it is (as it
> currently stands) repeated:
> 
> -------8<---------------------------------------------------------------
>  The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>  section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>  section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>  non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
> -------8<---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This has been very carefully designed and worded, every clause is
> operative, and the tenses matter. Futhermore, it is careful in what it
> does *not* say. It means precisely what it says, and it does not say
> anything that is not contained within the text; it is not difficult to
> understand.
> 
> Nothing in the proposed resolution says that an external agency will
> handle non-free; some people have suggested that it should. I
> considered this originally, but it would be meaningless. We cannot
> commit to the action of a non-Debian entity in a GR. If such a
> statement were present it would have no force, so its presence or
> absence should not alter the way that anybody votes.

Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
<[🔎] 20040110164306.GA20639@clifton-labs.com>, namely to leave the actual
packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible via nonfree.org
and to remove every trace of non-free from debian.org from a user's
perspective (I hope I have summarized well. The absence of discussion
about this proposal so far seems to imply that people are generally not
averse to it)

Any opinions on this (i.e. that those two proposals don't conflict)
assertion?


Michael