Re: Subject: Proposal - keep non-free, but commit to actively encouraging making individual packages obsolet
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > > > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > > > alternatives could well not be packaged (yet). But on the same time, my
> > > > proposal will not only make us provide free alternatives, but also we
> > > > will commit to providing a current status information of what the free
> > > > alternative are, and where they stand in functionality with regard to
> > > > the non-free package. Other details of my proposal are maybe best left
> > > > to technical details.
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Mine doesn't say when the free alternatives will be available.
> > > It can't -- that wouldn't make sense.
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > As Debian does not develop arbitrary non-debian related software (from a
> > hive-mind perspective, individual DDs might very well do, but we can't
> > tell them what to do anyway), this change would alter the technical
> > direction of the project a fair bit, IMHO.
>
> In principle, we [as a project] do not develop software at all.
>
> Projects like dpkg, alien, apt, and so on are all carried out by
> individual developers, on the initiative of individual developers.
> But maybe that contradicts that principle.
>
> However, we can sponsor other work, and encourage other work.
>
> Probably I should have used wording which does not seem to require that
> debian actually develop anything.
>
> Can a few other people make suggestions on this topic?
Notice that my proposal was, as intented, maybe not in the wording, that
we don't develop such replacement software, but orient and inform the
non-free users as to the eventual replacement and/or the discussion with
upstream about the licence change.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: