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

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:

Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
	If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.

That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR action.

Would adding the words "there will be a transition plan" be enough?
	Hmm. Lacking any details, and if the actions proposed are
contingent on such a transition plan, you probably want to flexh it
out, just so that you have a graduation clause.

Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?

	Could you point out which package was deleted from Debian that
had active DD's?

elfutils, I think. It was deleted at the DD's request via bug 221761

I think it can be less testable because a "no testing" licence can
get into non-free. That is part of why I think it dubious, but
	Ah, so this is a hypothetical statement. Are there any such
packages in non-free now, and heve there ever been any? If not, this
is a red herring.

I think we should consider reasonably forseeable problems instead of waving the "hypothetical" wand. From jumping into the middle of Craig's list, foiltex, ldmud, libapache-mod-fastcgi and libparmetis look likely to obstruct some testing. We'd need to look at the specifics of these and many others to be sure.

Will that ever happen? Will non-free packagers work towards this?
When there is no need for the non-free packages, the packagers
shall desist.
That didn't answer my second question. I think some packagers are
reluctant to help reduce the need for their non-free packages, so I
	Could you name names and give examples, please? Or is this
another hypothetical?

Well, you seem a possible example. Could you answer the second question, in your opinion, please?

suspect that they will never accept their packages are not needed
and we will never satisfy the "when" part of your answer.
	Ah. Since need is a subjective issue, how do yo propose to
determine when there is no need? Would input of actual users be more
important than input from people who have never used the package?

Need is subjective, but some people seem to confuse desire with need. I am not sure how you would determine when there is no need, but that's a condition you introduced here. So, do you have a way to determine when there is no need that avoids the problem of people opposed to removing non-free on principle, or were you trying to introduce an unsatisfiable condition?

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: