Re: Why not s/non-free/semi-free/g and remove non-free.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called "non-free" in
> Debian, the Free Software Organization. At the same time, I understand the
> practical benefits of the continuation of archive contents now called
> "non-free".
>
> In light of above understandings, let me seek "removal of non-free" with much
> more amicable context in which the practical function of our archive as a
> whole is maintained. This can be achieved by the creation of "semi-free"
> with yet-to-be-determined(*) clear guideline. Right now, we only have
> implicit guideline for "non-free".
one obvious problem with this is that it implies approval of almost-free
licenses. while those of us who want to keep non-free want to do so for
practical and convenience reasons (as well as honoring the promise made to our
users), i think it's safe to say that none of us approve of non-free licenses,
nor do we want to encourage them, or encourage the belief that they are good
enough.
calling it 'non-free' serves all the needs of practicality and honour, while at
the same time expressing the truth that the license is not good enough.
another problem is that keeping only the 'semi-free' stuff is a kick in the
teeth to those who need the proprietary non-free stuff. it certainly doesn't
serve their needs, unless you credit patronising notions like "it's for their
own good" and "we know what's best for them"
the solution is obvious, as it always has been. those who don't want non-free
can choose not to have it in their /etc/apt/sources.list. easy. in fact, this
is the default behaviour, so no action is required...users have to override the
default in order to get non-free and contrib packages.
craig
Reply to: