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

Re: Why not s/non-free/semi-free/g and remove non-free.


On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:52:29AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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.

No problem thinking this way ...  This is reasonable.

"one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea"

This discussion started by you left me a strange feeling on your
position but now I am clear.  Thanks.

Reply to: