Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> said:
> >> Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
> On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> > Why can't it?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:24:08AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I thought GRs were not able to make technical decisions.
I think your point, here, is that GRs should issue general of broad
applicability, and that there's some pre-requisites to satisfy before
using GRs to [for example] tinker with the inner details of some specific
package.
If that's not what you are talking about, maybe you could express your
thoughts more directly. An example might help.
> >>> 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
> > And thus irrelevant.
>
> I don't see why it's irrelevant to whether or not it's moral to remove
> non-free packages, which is where we started. Ability to remove them
> was not the question.
It's relevant to whether it's moral or not to remove someone else's
non-free package.
Can you see that?
> > Look likely to obscure testing? And you have not looked?
> > Sounds slanderous to me.
>
> Are you accusing me of defaming non-free packagers just because I said
> it is possible? If so, again, I think you are beyond reason. I think
> that my downloading non-free software will not convince you, which is
> why I do not do so.
Here is the text that Manoj was responding to when he said "Sounds
slanderous to me".
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.
This full context is visible at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01174.html
Is there some reason you quote material out of context? Do you not
understand what you read?
If so, there's little point to this conversation.
--
Raul
Reply to: